Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Nigel Dodds: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: The 10th report by the Independent Monitoring Commission was the most positive yet and confirmed that the security situation has shown enormous improvement. Although loyalist paramilitaries and dissident republicans continue to pose a threat, I am confident that we continue to move towards the kind of peaceful future that we all want for Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: As regards that peaceful future, the Minister will be aware of the full-scale republican paramilitary parade through Londonderry at the weekend, which was attended, it is reported, by Martin McGuinness—an interesting commentary on his commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Given that we are going to have an orchestrated campaign against Orange and other dignified and lawful parades in Northern Ireland, can the Minister tell us what his Department, the police or the Parades Commission have done, or will do, about that illegal display of force by republicans in Londonderry?

Paul Goggins: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what I am personally doing at the moment, which is to engage in a round of meetings with all parties—political parties and other groups as well—that have a particular interest in a peaceful period of parades over the next few weeks and months. I know that he is committed to that, as am I. Of course, all these parades should happen in a lawful and legal way. The Parades Commission has an important role to play in determining routes that make them safe.

Lady Hermon: In terms of improving the security situation in Northern Ireland, I am curious to know what contact Northern Ireland Office officials have had with any of the loyalist paramilitary groups, but particularly the Ulster Volunteer Force, in order to persuade them to begin the decommissioning of their weapons.

Paul Goggins: As I said in answer to the previous question, I have been engaged in a round of meetings. I met representatives of the Progressive Unionist party and again reiterated the importance of ensuring that we have a peaceful climate as we prepare for the parades season. I received a very encouraging response.

David Lidington: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. I also welcome the Under-Secretaries, the hon. Members for Inverclyde (David Cairns) and for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), to their responsibilities at the Northern Ireland Office and express my appreciation to the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) for the work that they did during their time there.
	Has the Minister had time to consider the conclusion by the Independent Monitoring Commission that loyalist and republican paramilitary groups are using community restorative justice projects as a way of imposing control over local communities? In the light of that verdict, will the Government undertake not to support such schemes or to impose new guidelines unless they have the clear support of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board?

Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. He asked whether I have had sufficient time to look into this. I have had sufficient time to know that this is a very tricky area and one that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering very carefully. He will bring forward some clear guidelines in the near future.

David Lidington: May I further encourage the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that their proposals on community restorative justice are placed on a clear statutory basis by embodying them in secondary legislation rather than just leaving this very important matter as the subject of administrative decision by the Minister of the day?

Paul Goggins: I can further confirm to the hon. Gentleman that when the guidelines are published, they will of course be underpinned by the rule of law and will indeed be operated in full partnership with the police. It is very important that it is done in that way. Restorative justice, as a concept, can have a role to play, but it must be part of the rule of law and operate within proper systems.

Northern Ireland Assembly

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Peter Hain: First, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the voluminous praise that he bestowed on my excellent team of Ministers.
	Last week, the Assembly was recalled to begin its task of forming an Executive. As soon as that is achieved, I can end suspension, thus restoring power to locally elected politicians, who are fully accountable to the people of Northern Ireland.

David Evennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be helpful if all parties in the Assembly condemned all criminality and paramilitary activity and that that would be the best way forward for the future of the Province?

Peter Hain: Absolutely. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is essential that all parties, especially those whose members hold ministerial office, are completely distanced from and condemn all paramilitary activity and criminality, and operate within the rule of law.

Eddie McGrady: May I refer the Secretary of State to his statement that he would make a further proclamation this week about creating a restoration committee for Northern Ireland, which he hopes that the party leaders will attend? Does not he believe that that might frustrate the work of the Assembly, the primary purpose of which is to restore Executive functions? What gives him the hope that, for example, the party leaders, who will not come together in the Assembly, will do so outside it in a restoration committee? Does not that make the shadow Assembly of even less substance by transferring its primary function outside that body?

Peter Hain: I am giving further consideration to representations from all the parties, including the hon. Gentleman's, on the proposal for a committee to prepare for restored government. I am listening carefully to what people are saying, and there is a case for it. I know that he will understand that the proposal made by Sir Reg Empey of the Ulster Unionist party is not a model that I favour and that it has not found favour with the other parties. We must continue the consultations until I am in a position to move forward.

Patrick Cormack: Cannot the Secretary of State summon the leadership of Sinn Fein and tell it simply and unequivocally that, unless it is prepared absolutely to forswear criminality, stop manipulating schemes for restorative justice and sign up to the rule of law, there can be no future for the Assembly and a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland? We all want him to succeed with that.

Peter Hain: We all want a restored Executive and Assembly with everybody operating within the rule of law. I am encouraged by recent statements by senior Sinn Fein figures, including Martin McGuinness, condemning criminality and, unusually, saying that those who absconded in the Tohill case should return and be brought to justice. Such statements may be too late but they are nevertheless welcome and we must continue to put pressure on Sinn Fein, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, to renounce all criminality, for the IRA to do so, too, and for everyone to operate within the rule of law.

Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State give me a categorical assurance that no committee from anywhere will be set up to conduct the negotiations? The negotiations were promised between the Government and the parties and there cannot be another set of negotiations running alongside them. We know that the Prime Minister and the Minister are coming to talk to us. Will the Secretary of State assure me that no committee with power to negotiate will be set up? He knows the attitude of the Democratic Unionist party to that. We would not take part in any such committee. Hon. Members should be reminded that Sinn Fein is currently boycotting the Assembly's public meetings.

Peter Hain: I believe that Sinn Fein should be at the Assembly's public sittings along with all the other parties. I am consulting the right hon. Gentleman's party along with the others about the proposal for a committee to prepare for restored government. I do not intend to give it any power to negotiate. I could neither do that nor force that on anyone. However, it would be helpful if there were a forum in which issues could be identified by all the parties. Negotiations will obviously take place with the Governments but there is an advantage to everyone seeing what is on the table before they take place.

Laurence Robertson: On setting up the full Northern Ireland Assembly, may I record Conservative Members' concern about the criminality and paramilitary activity of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association? We call on them to abandon all criminality and paramilitary activity and completely decommission all their weapons. I am sure that the Secretary of State would like the opportunity to agree with me.

Peter Hain: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point with eloquence and force. It is a point that has been made across the House, and it has been stated with particular force by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and by the members of the Democratic Unionist party sitting alongside her that all criminality by the UDA and the UVF must be ended now—and not before time.

Looked-after Children/Vulnerable Adults

Jeff Ennis: What plans he has to improve education provision and support for looked-after children and vulnerable adults in Northern Ireland.

Mary Creagh: What steps he is taking to improve education provision and support for looked-after children and vulnerable adults in Northern Ireland.

Maria Eagle: In March 2006, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £100 million additional funding for children and young people in Northern Ireland, of which £5.6 million has been set aside specifically for projects to improve the education provision and support for looked-after children and vulnerable young adults.

Jeff Ennis: I thank the Minister for her reply. I have always thought that the term "looked-after children" was a misnomer, because I have always regarded them as looked-over children. Will the Minister tell me what her Department is doing to ensure that looked-after children take the opportunity to stay on in education post-16?

Maria Eagle: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's view that looked-after children are often overlooked rather than looked after. We have a particular responsibility and obligation to do well by looked-after children, because we are effectively their parents. Part of the £5.6 million that I have mentioned will be spent on enabling children leaving care to stay on with their foster carers until they reach the age of 21. The resulting increase in stability will play a key role in improving the chances for looked-after children to achieve proper educational attainment in line with their peers. That in turn will be a key determinant in improving the life chances of this vulnerable group of young people.

Mary Creagh: Will my hon. Friend tell me what difference the new Education and Inspections Bill, which places a duty on local authorities to provide youth services for vulnerable young adults with learning disabilities, will make to such young people in Northern Ireland?

Maria Eagle: Providing support services for children and young people with learning disabilities is an essential part of enabling them to do well in life, and it is our commitment to those young people that we want them to do as well as they possibly can and to play their full part in society—including in education and jobs. The kind of support services to which my hon. Friend has referred play an essential part in ensuring that that happens.

Iris Robinson: Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that the ongoing survey of parents, teachers and members of the public on the way in which religious education is taught in schools in Northern Ireland is not an attempt to dilute the Bible-based Christian ethos that is fundamental to the people of Northern Ireland?

Maria Eagle: I am happy to make it absolutely clear that nothing being done by any of the Departments for which I am responsible, or by the Government, is aimed at undermining the ethos of schools or of religious education in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Another group of vulnerable children is those who are registered blind. At present, only 30 per cent. of those who are in mainstream schools achieve five or more GCSEs, which is well below the Northern Ireland average. It has been suggested that one of the factors that contributes to this is the fact that, on average, those youngsters have access to only one text book for the full range of subjects that they are studying, even though the Royal National Institute of the Blind, and St. Joseph's School for the Visually Impaired in the Irish Republic, have the facilities to translate such books into Braille or to transfer them on to disks. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that this gap in education provision for blind children in Northern Ireland is being bridged?

Maria Eagle: I have a great personal commitment to ensuring that disabled children, including children with a visual impairment, have the same chances as every other child to achieve to their utmost. I would be more than happy to look closely at what the hon. Gentleman has said and to come back to him with some more details.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Minister's commitment and the extra funding, but how does she reconcile that, and the commitment to special needs education, with the savage financial cuts being made by education and library boards? Those cuts are hitting the soft underbelly of education very hard, and seriously eroding those services. What we are giving with one hand, we are taking away with the other.

Maria Eagle: I do not accept that there are cuts in education spending in Northern Ireland. There has been a massive increase in spending, by more than 60 per cent., since 1997. There are demographic issues involved, however, and falling school rolls mean that the money has not always been used as efficiently as it might have been. That is why we are engaged in a strategic review of education, which will enable us to ensure that the big increases in spending planned for the future will be properly used to benefit the education of all the children of Northern Ireland.

Jim Dobbin: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that children in care have the same access to IT support as children in families? Will that include training?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am happy to be able to tell him that more than £2 million is being invested in an education and training credit to make sure that a grant of at least £800 a year is given to foster carers, to enable them to make sure that each looked-after child has a computer. Having access to IT is one of the key ways in which children participate and do well at school. We must make sure that our looked-after children have that same access. In that regard, we are also making sure that every child who lives in a children's home has a computer of their own, not just one that might be available to more than one child. That should assist.

Northern Ireland Assembly

David Simpson: If he will make a statement on the Government's intentions concerning the salaries and expenses of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Peter Hain: I have made it clear that should Assembly Members be unable to elect a First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Executive by 24 November, the salaries and allowances of Members of the Legislative Assembly would be cancelled immediately.

David Simpson: Since I tabled this question, the  Belfast Telegraph has run a campaign in relation to mileage claims for Members of the Legislative Assembly. Does the Secretary of State agree that mileage claims for MLAs should be brought into line with those for Members of this House?

Peter Hain: The Assembly ought to consider that issue, because many people in Northern Ireland are asking a question about that. The Assembly is perfectly free to set up a working group to resolve the issue and to make recommendations to me, and I hope that it does so.

Lembit �pik: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is so noisy. Mr. Binley, perhaps your conversations could take place elsewhere.

Lembit �pik: May I add my welcome to the Secretary of State's new ministerial helpers? I am sure that they will all be very happy together. I look forward to working with his team in the interests of peace over the next 20 to 30 years.
	The Secretary of State says that he will cancel expenses immediately on 25 November. However, what arrangements is he making to manage the legal responsibilities of MLAs with regard to accommodation and staffing contracts, most of which involve periods of notice well beyond 24 November? If he is serious about avoiding that, how will he make sure that both Governments feed into the Assembly committee

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is too noisy. Conversations should take place elsewhere.

Lembit �pik: I will finish off now, Mr. Speaker. How will the Secretary of State make sure that both Governments feed into the Assembly committee on the restoration of devolution so that he does not have to cancel the expenses?

Peter Hain: First, I am not sure that we will be here for 20 or 30 years, nice though that thought might be. Secondly, I do not want the Assembly to shut down on 24 November; I want restoration to succeed before then. The last thing that I want is to have to stop salaries and allowances and see the whole thing put on ice. That is the inevitability, however, if the parties are unable to agree. However, bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, I shall circulate advice to Assembly Members in the late summer to make them aware of their legal obligations and to inform staff and particularly landlords should advice centres and constituency offices have to close if they are unable to agree.

Organised Crime

John Robertson: What additional measures his Department has considered for engaging and developing cross-community support in tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: The Organised Crime Task Force is tackling organised crime on a cross-community basis with the support of the law enforcement agencies, the Northern Ireland Departments, the Policing Board and the business community.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and congratulate him and the Organised Crime Task Force on their work. The Organised Crime Task Force report of 2005 stated that the statistics show that loyalists and republicans are moving from sectarianism into organised crime. It said:
	of the gangs identified in last year's Threat Assessment, 70% remain active.
	That did not include the splinter groups or the new gangs that came into the picture. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fundamental for police groups and community groups to work together to ensure that the trend goes downwards, not upwards?

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know that he has a particular interest in the matter and that he has been very supportive of the relevant legislation. He is quite right that, if organised crime is taking place in order to line the pockets of organised criminal gangs or to fund paramilitary activity, those people need to know that the full force of the law will be brought to bear against them and that the agencies will work together to ensure that organised crime in Northern Ireland is combated.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The issue in Northern Ireland is not the lack of cross-community support for the security forces in dealing with organised crime, although I note that Sinn Fein still does not support the police. I hope that the Minister will join me in urging that party to cross the line and support the rule of law. Is not the issue one of ensuring that the police, the Assets Recovery Agency, the Organised Crime Task Force and Revenue and Customs have the resources that they need to tackle the problem? Until organised crime and the grip of paramilitarism is broken, we will not have real peace in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in saying that all parties in Northern Ireland should fully support the rule of law. Of course that is the case. The agencies are well resourced and may I say that, under the incentivisation scheme that the Government have put in place, 50 per cent. of any assets recovered go back to the agency that recovered them and into front-line services? It therefore becomes a successful cycle in which more ill-gotten resources go back to the benefit of the community.

Northern Ireland Executive (Appointments)

Philip Dunne: What his policy is on the appointment to ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Executive of people who do not support the police.

David Hanson: The Government believe that all parties, especially those holding ministerial office in a restored Northern Ireland Executive, should support policing arrangements in Northern Ireland.

Philip Dunne: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he conceive of any democracyfor example, the Republic of Irelandin which Ministers hold office in an Executive without supporting the police? Will he support my call for Assembly Ministers to sign a new pledge of office to support the police and uphold the rule of law?

David Hanson: The Government believe that support for the police should come from all political parties and I am encouraging all parties to play their role in the Policing Board. We currently have a pledge of office in place and I confirmed in a debate last week that we can discuss making revisions to it and having a new pledge if that is what people want. I am happy to discuss that with all parties.

Peter Robinson: Would the Minister regard the Prime Minister as incompetent if he were to allow into his Cabinet someone who thought that it was optional whether or not he supported the police? Should not supporting the police be a requirement or are there double standards when it comes to Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: As I have already confirmed, support for the police from all parties is something that we are working towards. I want Sinn Fein in particular to play its part in the Policing Board. We currently have a strong pledge of office and I am willing to discuss a revision of it with all parties. As I have already said, I am happy to do that in due course if the hon. Gentleman wishes to get agreement on those matters.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Peter Bone: If he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Peter Hain: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer.

Peter Bone: We will not allow terrorists or former terrorists to sit on the Treasury Bench, so why do the Government think that it is all right for such people to be involved in the Government of Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Sinn Fein, the fact is that the Independent Monitoring Commission has spelled out in categorical terms that Sinn Fein and the IRA have turned their backs on their past paramilitary activities and violence, and that they are increasingly doing so in respect of criminality, too. That puts us in a good position to seek agreement between the parties to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive and to bring local democracy to Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: If it is confirmed to the Secretary of State and the House that Martin McGuinness attended a paramilitary display in Londonderry at the weekend, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that he has thus proved himself totally incapable of gaining the confidence of the people in respect of playing a part in any Northern Ireland Executive?

Peter Hain: As I have just said, it is very important that we recognise the enormous change that has taken place. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he and his colleagues and relatives have suffered over the years, there has been an enormous sea change since bombs and bullets were being let off by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations every day of the week. We must take advantage of that sea change, and build with confidence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party will agree to move forward, with all the other parties, and establish a restored democratic Government for Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Tony Wright: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 May.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I should say that during this week we have sadly lost a Member of our House. Eric Forth was a redoubtable opponent, caustic at times, fearless and principled always, often wittya lot of it at my expensebut also privately immensely courteous, friendly, and just a thoroughly decent man. We all send our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tony Wright: I am sure that the whole House will want to associate itself with what the Prime Minister has just said.
	When the Prime Minister was in Baghdad this week, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, was in this country, saying that it was now ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Iraq was not in a state of civil war. Does the Prime Minister agree, and where does that leave our promise not to leave Iraq until a stable democracy has been established?

Tony Blair: I think that the people best able to give a sense of where Iraq is today, and where it needs to be, are the people who are now in government, elected by 12 million Iraqi votes. What they describe to me is a situation in which, for the first time, they have a genuine unity Government. In other words, we have Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds sitting down and working together, all of them representing parties that have stood in elections and been elected by the people of Iraq. I may say that none of them wanted the multinational force to withdraw immediately, but all of them believe that the terrorism that is attempting to push their country into civil war is a terrorism that has to be defeatedthat can be defeatedby the united will of the Iraqi people who want democracy, and the international community that should support them in that endeavour.
	I believe that, as the new Prime Minister of Iraq said to me, if we defeat terrorism there we will defeat it everywhere.

David Cameron: May I begin by adding my tribute to Eric Forth. He was a master at this Dispatch Box. He had a quick wit, a brilliant mind and, above all, a dedication to this place. While he loved the Commons, he also worked hard for people in Bromley and Chislehurst. From his seat just behind me, he gave a running commentary on Prime Minister's Question Time. He had a few things to say about the Prime Minister's performance, but just as often he had a few things to say about mine as well. He always spoke his mind about everything, but he was a principled defender of what he believed in, and he will be missed by everyone.
	The new Home Secretary has said that the immigration and nationality directorate, after nine years of a Labour Government, is inadequate, dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. More than two years ago, in February 2004, the Prime Minister said:
	The IND is a transformed part of the Home Office.
	Does the Prime Minister now agree that that judgment was completely wrong?

Tony Blair: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts of what has changed over the past nine years. I think it is fair to point out that whereas over the last four years of the Conservative Government the number of asylum applications rose by 50 per cent. [Interruption.] This is on the record. We have reduced the number of asylum claims to below the number that we inherited in 1997. Whereas that Government used to take 22 months over initial asylum applications, 80 per cent. are now decided within two months. We have doubled the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed, and unlike the previous Government we now actually know the number of people whom we need to deport and can deport them.
	I agree that a huge amount still needs to be done, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We have waves of migration, not just in this country but throughout Europe. Migration is a major issue in the United States at the moment for the self-same reasons. There has been, as my right hon. Friend said, huge progress in the past nine years, but there needs to be much more.

David Cameron: To try to blame previous Conservative Home Secretaries just will not wash. The Prime Minister will be blaming Sir Robert Peel next. Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister said and what the Home Secretary said. The Prime Minister said that the IND
	is a transformed part of the Home Office...How has it done it? By changing the law; by innovating, by setting targets; by leadership; by focusing on results.
	The Home Secretary, who is trying to help the Prime Minister in his hour of need, said:
	It is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management systems and processes.
	How can those two possibly wash?

Tony Blair: For the very reason that I have just given to the right hon. Gentleman.  [Interruption.] No, I am not blaming the last Conservative Government. I am simply pointing out that the system that we inherited in 1997 took ages to decide asylum claims, and that it was a system in which the number of asylum seekers rose and failed asylum seekers were not removed. It is a fact that the number of asylum claims is now down; it is a fact that the number of removals has now doubled; and it is a fact that 80 per cent. of claims are now decided in two months. It is also, however, the case that much more needs to be done.

David Cameron: All right; if Ministers are going to take responsibility, perhaps the Prime Minister can answer this. Can he explain why the Minister who has been judged too incompetent to run the immigration part of the Home Office has been put in charge of the police?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has been moved, and I point out that, under him, we actually doubled the number of removals of failed asylum seekers.
	Let us turn to the measures that we now need to take. We need to introduce the new immigration points system, as we have outlined, but we also need to introduce the electronic borders that we have suggested, and we need a proper system of identity for everybody in this country. In addition, we need to change the law on deportation. Let me just point out to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that every time that this Government have sought to take measures [Interruption.] Well, yes, but although the Opposition talk about tackling the problem in general, they oppose the measures in particular that are necessary to do it. So let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that they opposed the measures that increased our powers to deport, they opposed [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen must give the Prime Minister an opportunity to answer the question. There is far too much shouting down.

Tony Blair: I was merely pointing out to the right hon. Member for Witney that every time he and his party have had an opportunity to vote for tougher measures [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell you this: when people hiss, I cannot find out who is hissing, so the next move is that I suspend the House, and we do not have Prime Minister's Question Time.  [Interruption.] Order. So the behaviour must improve, or I suspend the House. That is the next move.

Tony Blair: I was merely pointing out to Opposition Members that every time that we have proposed tougher measuresfor example, to deport people or to fine those illegally getting people into our countryand every time that we have tried to tighten the law on those people who are in prison and whom we need to deport, the Opposition have voted against it.  [Interruption.] It is no use the right hon. Gentleman looking puzzled. Does he want me to go through each and every measure?  [Interruption.] Right. The Opposition voted against deporting foreign national prisoners at the halfway point of their sentence. They voted against removing refugee convention protection from all prisoners sentenced to two years. They voted against the single-tier appeal system, which is an absolutely vital part of getting people out of the country. They failed to support fines for carriers of illegal immigrants, and they failed to support one-stop appeals or penalties for spurious appeals. They also abstained on the measures for a points system and for limiting the rights of appeal in this country. In other words, the charge against the right hon. Gentleman, with respect, is that every time that we propose a tough measure, he opposes it.

David Cameron: Honestly, it is hard to know where to start. If the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was doing such a good job, why was he moved? The Prime Minister says that we have opposed his legislation: we have been telling him about the problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 for years, and he said that everything was fine. In the last week, we have learned that 95 foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes are still at large; 700 people escaped from open prisons last year; and illegal immigrants have been allowed to clean the offices of the Department that is meant to remove them. That is a typical week in Labour's Home Office.
	While all the other Ministers are being moved, there is one Minister who has held the same job for nine years and who said that law and order was his priority. When will the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for the shambles?

Tony Blair: I am happy to take personal responsibility, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that according to the British crime survey, overall crime is down, not up. We have put in place the antisocial behaviour legislationmeasures that he also failed to support in this House. We have also toughened sentences, which is why there are more people in prison serving longer prison sentences. He voted against the measures that allowed us to do that. In addition, we have an extra 14,000 police officers, and he voted against the investment for that. With the greatest respect again, although he talks in general about how much he cares about crime, he ends up voting in particular against the measures necessary to deal with it.

Stephen Hepburn: Ten people a week die from asbestos-related cancers because of the negligence of their former employers. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give an answer right now, but will he look into the issue as a matter of urgency, to ensure that those workers get their rightful compensation instead of being dragged through the courts by multinational companies?

Tony Blair: I know about the issue that my hon. Friend raises and I have met other hon. Members to discuss it. I hope that in the next few weeks we will be able to provide some comfort and succour to the people in the position that my hon. Friend describes.

Menzies Campbell: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes paid to Eric Forth. I, too, can pay tribute to his occasionally painful wit.
	Following the tragic shootings in Dunblane 10 years ago, Lord Cullen recommended a national firearms register. Why has the Home Office not yet put that in place?

Tony Blair: We have of course banned the use of handguns and taken many other measures, including saying that those in illegal possession of a firearm get a minimum five-year sentence. We believe that the measures that we have taken, along with the other measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing today, are the best way to deal with the issue.

Menzies Campbell: But three weeks ago, the Prime Minister told me that the Home Office was fit for purpose: yesterday, the Home Secretary said that it was not. Which is it?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the reasons that I have just been explaining to the Leader of the Opposition. There are huge challenges in the immigration and nationality directorate, because of the changing nature of migration, and if we want to deal with those issues, we have to take measures that allow us to do so. I was saying a moment or two ago that the Conservative party had voted against many of the measures necessary to strengthen the law on immigration, asylum and crime. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been thoroughly consistent and voted against every measure necessary to strengthen the law against illegal immigration, against unfounded asylum seekers and in respect of crime. If he and the Conservative party want to support the police and others in the work that they do, I hope that they will support the next measures that we introduce.

Julie Morgan: What can my right hon. Friend say to my constituent, Mr. John Flynn of Llanishen in Cardiff, North, who worked for Allied Steel and Wire for 30 years and will retire next year at 65, when he will receive a works pension of 80 instead of the 800 that he was expecting and had contributed to for 30 years? Can my right hon. Friend extend the financial assistance scheme to help Mr. Flynn and all the other Allied Steel and Wire pensioners?

Tony Blair: As I think I said in March, there is a strong and compelling campaign for the review of the financial assistance scheme. I said then that we would expedite it: we have done so and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement tomorrow on the pensions White Paper that will also deal with that issue.

David Cameron: The Education and Inspections Bill to be considered later today will give schools greater independence, raise standards and give parents more choice. It will pass without being wrecked because we have given it our backing. The Prime Minister has been prepared to drop tribal politics and accept Conservative support in the interests of parents and pupils. Does he think that the Chancellor will take the same approach?

Tony Blair: Well, I shall point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the Chancellor has done. We have the strongest economy since the war, and interest rates that are

Oliver Letwin: Go on.

Tony Blair: Yes, I shall take every opportunity to do so. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Chancellor, and I should like to talk about him. As a result of my right hon. Friend's economic record, interest rates are half what they were, unemployment is down and employment is up. We have been able to invest in schools, in our pupils and in higher education. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that investment, along with the reform, will continue.

David Cameron: If the Chancellor is doing such a good job, why does not the Prime Minister let him take over? [ Interruption. ]

Tony Blair: The Leader of the Opposition may want to forget it, but we had a general election a year ago. We won, they lost.

Dennis Skinner: I know that the Prime Minister is aware that the question of illegal immigration is in the papers consistently. It is a difficult one, but I came across a case the other day involving a man from Ghana. He came here for an eye operation, and stayed for 10 years on benefits. This bloke did not work at the Home Office; he was a Tory party worker in 1995. The Home Secretary at the time should have been counting illegal immigrants, but he missed one right under his nose. We are now told that the Tory party wants to spread happiness

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: I do not know whether that man's greater mistake was to enter this country illegally or to work for Tory central office.

Tim Yeo: In January, the Government's Health White Paper said:
	We will develop a new generation of modern NHS community hospitals.
	Just before last year's general election, the West Suffolk primary care trust confirmed that a new community hospital would be built in Sudbury, in my constituency. Those plans were cancelled just after the election, and the trust has now decided to shut the existing and highly valued community hospital. Does the Prime Minister want his legacy to the people of Suffolk to be the destruction of their health service, or would he prefer to meet my constituents for just 10 minutes to understand why they prefer the policy in the White Paper to what is happening on the ground?

Tony Blair: The organisation of services is obviously a matter for the local PCT and strategic health authority, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that health funding has increased by more than 30 per cent. in the past three years, and that it is due to increase by 20 per cent. in the next two. As a matter of fact, I think that our record in respect of his health authority is rather good. The number of people there waiting more than six months for in-patient treatment has fallen[Hon. Members: Oh.] Well, Opposition Members should know that people care about these matters. The number of people waiting more than six months for in-patient treatment has fallen from more than 12,000 to just two. That is part of this Government's record.

Gisela Stuart: Does the Prime Minister think it right that only 30 per cent. of women reaching state retirement age are entitled to a full state pension? That compares with 85 per cent. of men.

Tony Blair: No, and that is one reason why it was so important to have the Turner commission and report. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will set out the Government's view of the long-term pension framework for the future. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that many women have not built up their pension contributions because they have been unable to work, perhaps because they have had to care for someone. That is precisely one of the matters that my right hon. Friend will address tomorrow.

Nuffield Speech and Language Unit

John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the future of the Nuffield Speech and Language Unit.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I recognise that it is something about which he feels strongly. The staff at the Nuffield speech and language unit have a good track record in providing intensive speech and language therapy to children with severe learning difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the future of the unit is currently under consultation. However, I understand that the trust will hold a meeting later this week to discuss the whole future of the unit. I am sure that the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust will listen to all the views expressed before making a final decision.

John Bercow: I thank the Prime Minister for that helpful and informative reply. For 35 years, the Nuffield unit has provided the specialist help for children with very severe speech and language disorders that the Prime Minister described. Given, however, that as things stand the unit faces the threat of closure purely on financial grounds, will the Prime Minister agree to consider how to safeguard it, whether by specialised commissioning or by some other means, as a unique resource for the benefit of some of the most vulnerable children in the country?

Tony Blair: Obviously, this is primarily a matter for the trust, but we certainly should consider how to preserve the unit and its expertise. The hon. Gentleman knows what the issue is: as I understand it, there are a number of children in the unit at present, but a significant proportion of them are due to leave in July and therefore the income for the unit will diminish. However, I understand that referrals have been taking place over the past few weeks, so it is in that context that the meeting will take place next week. I am happy to keep an eye on the matter personally and to correspond with the hon. Gentleman about the outcome of the meeting.

Engagements

Malcolm Moss: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he did indeed ask the Deputy Prime Minister to give up his grace and favour mansion at Dorneywood?

Tony Blair: I have no intention whatever of discussing the reshuffle or any matters associated with it.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the appalling murder last week of Kiyan Prince, a popular, hard-working student at the London academy in my constituencya 15-year-old boy whose bright future was tragically cut short by an assailant's knife. We all hope that the knife amnesty starting today will succeed, but what can my right hon. Friend do to convince young men that knives are not fashion accessories but offensive weapons and that carrying a knife risks a heavy sentence and increases the likelihood of becoming another knife victim?

Tony Blair: Obviously, that was a particularly tragic case and our condolences go to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. As he is aware, the knife amnesty starts today; such an amnesty worked successfully some years back and, we hope, will again. It follows the successful gun amnesty in April 2003. In addition, we are doing two other things: adding a range of knives to the offensive weapons list and raising the minimum age at which a person can buy a knife. Where a child is threatened in any way it will constitute an aggravating factor. With the police, we will continue to do everything we can both to ensure that the penalties for those in illegal possession of a knife are sufficient and to discourage young people from getting into a knife and gun culture, which is not just appalling for its victims and the people who suffer its violence but does nothing for the lives of those engaged in it.

Robert Goodwill: Given that the Hutton report was an inquiry about the death of a public servant, should copies signed by celebrities be auctioned to raise funds for a political party?

Tony Blair: I do not believe that any offence to anyone was intended.

Tom Harris: This week, at the start of the UK-wide knife amnesty, the Scottish Parliament will be debating an amendment proposed by my MSP, Charlie Gordon, which calls for mandatory prison sentences for anyone carrying a knife in public, in exactly the same way as the law currently deals with those carrying guns. Will the Prime Minister consider introducing a similar law for the rest of our country?

Tony Blair: We are certainly looking carefully at how we can deal with that situation, which is somewhat different from that of guns, because there can be reasons for particular people to carry a knife. We are giving urgent consideration not just to banning a whole series of other knives that could be used as offensive weapons, but also to ensuring that there is a minimum sentence if someone is found in possession of a knife without good reason. That is something well worth looking at.

Shailesh Vara: In 1997, the Prime Minister said that things can only get better. Nine years on, when will the Home Office get better?

Tony Blair: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say how things have got better. The economy is stronger, unemployment is down and employment is up; waiting lists and times are down in the national health service; and school results have improved at 11, 14, 16 and 18. In relation to the Home Office, crime is down, as I pointed out earlier, and there are record numbers of policeindeed, there are record numbers of police in his own area.

Brian Iddon: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that the EU is trying to control the salaries of top football players. Does he agree that the salaries of some othersthose who run railway companies, chief executives of housing associations, and even vice-chancellorsare out of control, especially by comparison with the pay awards being received by those who work for them? Surely nobody should earn more than the person who runs the country.

Tony Blair: I am not sure about that. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to make a really helpful suggestion and say that the person who runs the country should be paid the same as the footballers, but no. There are always issues about how many people we should have on what salaries, but my own view of this, including in relation to football, is that it is very difficult to find a system that properly controls such things, especially in what is pretty much a global commercial market.

Mark Harper: The health White Paper says that community hospitals threatened with closure should not be lost for short-term budgetary reasons. Both Dilke and Lydney community hospitals in my constituency are threatened with closure for exactly that reason. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

Tony Blair: It is surely the case that, in the end, the question for the Government is the amount of money that we give to areas such as the hon. Gentleman's, and we have increased the funding again dramatically over the last few years. It has been doubled over the period of this Government. [Hon. Members: Where has it gone?] I can explain where it has gone in the hon. Gentleman's own area. There are almost 3,000 more nurses, 500 more consultants, 400 more GPs, and a new 32 million hospital opened in March 2005the new Honeybourne specialist rehabilitation and recovery centre. There is a massive amount of work going on in his area, but in the end how services are organised has got to be for the locality.

Si�n James: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Swansea division of the South Wales police on its excellent recent crime figures? Overall crime is down by 32 per cent., burglary is down by 32 per cent. and auto crime is down by 48 per cent. I am sure that he will agree that those figures are worth celebrating.

Tony Blair: I am very happy to congratulate the police in my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, that is part of a pattern in which crime has fallen overall in the past few years. That is no consolation to anybody who is a victim of crime, but the fact is that the police have got more resources than ever before and the law has been toughened to allow them to deal with things such as antisocial behaviour and now serious and organised crime. I am delighted to see that that has produced such good results in her constituency.

Philip Hollobone: In Northamptonshire, 250 people are classified as persistent and prolific offenders and they commit 85 per cent of the crime in the county. Should not the law be changed to ensure that those people, when caught and sentenced, serve their time in jail in full?

Tony Blair: Surely the most important thing is that, all the way through their sentence and afterwards, they are properly monitored and supervised so that even after they have left prisonbecause some people who are prolific offenders will leave prisonthey are supervised in a way that allows us to track their movements and to know exactly what is happening to them. Those are precisely the measures that we included in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman and his party abstained on. What I say to him is that if we want to tackle any of those issues, whether they are to do with drugs or organised crimewhere, again, the measures were either voted against by the Conservative party or abstained onwe have to have the measures necessary. We will propose those measures and I hope that he supports them.

Andrew MacKinlay: I remind the Prime Minister that he and I were elected on a manifesto that included a commitment to make bank holidays over and above the minimum national holiday provision. Will he give an undertaking that that commitment will be fulfilled and implemented by the third summer of this Parliament?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to the Warwick agreement, and I assure him that it will be honoured in full, as we have said totrade unions and employers. It will bring decent minimum standards into the workplace, which is an important difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative party.

Points of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question relating to the fitness for purpose of the Home Secretary, the former Home Secretary and the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality in respect of a priority question that I tabled just before the former Home Secretary was sacked. It asked what account the Home Secretary had taken, in exercising his discretion in implementing his policy on the deportation of foreign national convicted persons, of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 3 of the European convention on human rights. It was tabled on 3 May, but 16 days later all I have received is a holding reply. Will you, Mr. Speaker, please insist that that question, which I tabled on 3 May, be answered forthwith?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There appears to have been a lengthy delay in that case, and I will seek an explanation from the Minister concerned. There are currently too many such delays on questions to Departments. I remind the Ministers of their duty to the House to give timely answers to questions, as set out in Erskine May.

Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that lapse. I have listened carefully to your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and will ensure that that matter is treated with the seriousness that it deserves by my colleagues in the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the Leader of the House.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. I wonder whether it is acceptable for hon. Members to sell publicly provided documents for the financial benefit of a political party. I would be grateful if you issued guidance for the elimination of doubt for hon. Members. If that practice is not acceptable, will you issue guidance on whether you would handle such a breach, or whether it would be better referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is an early-day motion regarding that matter, which the Chair should not be drawn into. The hon. Gentleman should sign the early-day motion, if he so wishes, although I am not encouraging him to do so.

Edward Vaizey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, Dr. David Kelly was a constituent of mine. Earlier, the Prime Minister said that no offence was intended to be caused by the sale of that document, but I assure him that it was caused. I have heard you say that you do not want to be involved in the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether it would be in order for a Cabinet Office Minister to attend this House to make a statement

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there, because it was not clear that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) was referring to an hon. Member's family. I would not expect anyone to draw the Chair into an argument about any hon. Member's family, whether that hon. Member is a humble Back Bencher or the Prime Minister. I will not do that, and I hope that that does not become a practice of the House.

Bill presented
	  
	Sustainable Communities

Julia Goldsworthy, supported by Mr. David Drew, Gregory Barker, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Chris Huhne, Alan Simpson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Andrew Stunell, Mr. Douglas Carswell, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron and Mr. Dan Rogerson, presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to submit plans to the Secretary of State in connection with promoting the sustainability of local communities; to provide for parish councils and other persons to participate in the formulation of such plans; to provide for the Secretary of State to assist local authorities in promoting sustainable communities; to specify the indicators by which the sustainability of local authorities may be measured; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed. [Bill 187].

Sunday Trading Act 1994 (Amendment)

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to limit the hours of opening of large shops on Sundays and other specified days.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House a Bill that will limit the hours in which large supermarkets and other stores trade on a Sunday at present. I do so because I believe that every politician in the House must answer a simple question: what kind of society do we wish to create? In 1994, did we really wish to create a seven-days-a-week society, with each day identical to the previous one? Did we wish to make Sunday the same as a Saturday, Friday or Monday? I do not believe that we did.
	A healthy society has a rhythm to life, not a monotony of work, work, work, shop, work, shop, shop, work, or whatever. To me, that is not good for a healthy society. I am worried about families, and I want to help them to be together, not to split them apart so that one partner works on a Sunday while the other looks after the children, allowing them to work on a Monday while the first partner looks after the children. That is not good for families. Families are generally a unit of two partners and children. I think that it is good if families can spend time together as a unit, rather than each partner spending time individually with the children. There are other opportunities that are missing from the rhythm of life.
	Although I am a ChristianI am a Roman Catholic and I go to churchthat is not the fundamental reason why I am proposing the Bill. I am suggesting that one day has to be different, and it does not matter whether that is for religious observance, a sporting interest, leisure, or time with the children. I fundamentally believe that, for a healthy society, such a difference must go on.
	Let us consider the impact of the 1994 Act. The Government-commissioned Indepen report stated that the changes that have occurred since 1994 include the extension of Sunday opening and its continuing growth. The report concludes that congestion has increased on Sundays as more and more people go to the shops. However, more importantly for those who have to work on Sundays, there has been a reduction in the Sunday wage premium. Those who find themselves with little choice but to work on Sundays are thus finding that their reward for giving up their day off with their families is being reduced.
	When we consider what people want, we must look at the changes that have occurred. One of the big changes to the grocery trade has been the growth of the big four. The big four now have 70 per cent. of all grocery trade. The Department of Trade and Industry's response to that is not to say, Hold on a second. Aren't just four companies dominating the whole market? It has refused year after year to examine that situation to determine whether there is fair trading, although there is some give on that at the moment.
	The Department's proposals are actually the reverse of mine. It proposes to consult on deregulating Sundays altogether. The only consequence of that would be to increase the dominance of the big four. It would work to the detriment of small shops, and there would be not only no rhythm of life in society in the week, but no rhythm of where people can go to shop: the convenience stores would all close because they could not compete with the buying power of the large supermarkets.
	What sort of society do we want? Is it one that is led by the market? I believe that that should not be the case. The market should serve us, not we serve the market. A survey by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which does not support my proposalsit wants the existing regulations to remain in place; it does not want an extension of opening hours, but nor does it want to go back to the situation in 1994showed that 43 per cent. of those who responded did not want to work on Sundays but often had to, that 37 per cent. did not mind working on Sundays occasionally, and that only 20 per cent. wanted to work on Sundays. The reality is, however, that more and more people are being forced to. I am aware of people in my constituency who are frightened to say no to their employers when it comes to Sunday working. The number of workers who are now protected is falling because work within the sector tends to be short term.
	However, not only are shop workers affected by Sunday opening; so are street cleaners, who have to go out on a Sunday because there is now more mess on that day; so are bus drivers, because people want to go to the shops and there is pressure on services on Sundays; so are lorry drivers, who have to give up their weekends to make deliveries to stores; so are the police, who now have to do more work because shops are open on a Sunday; so are traffic wardens, who have to control the traffic on Sundays; and so are fire crews, who have to staff the fire stations because there is an increased risk of their being called out because of the shops and additional offices that are open on a Sunday. The 1994 Act has had an impact not just on the rhythm of life and on workers who are forced to give up their free time to work on a Sunday, but on a lot of other people in many other sectors.
	Let me quote two or three cases that have been put to me. A woman working for a large department store in Swansea wrote to Keep Sunday Special, saying:
	I feel enormous pressure exerted on me to work Sundays, not only by my employer, but by my colleagues, many of whom felt threatened and worried by recent redundancies. I approached a supervisor, pointing out that legally I could not be forced to work on a Sunday. I was told that it was in my interests to be part of the team...no one else is complaining!
	People have contacted Working Families, which also wants to keep the status quo. It said:
	One caller had been working weekend shifts for many years while her ex-partner looked after the children. However, when he moved away she was left with no cover. She simply couldn't work weekends any more.
	She lost her job as a consequence. Working Families also said:
	Another caller had had his shift patterns changed unilaterally to include some weekends, which coincided with when his wife worked. His employer wasn't prepared to fit shifts around partners. We advised the caller of his rights regarding flexible working, but he said that both he and his wife were too scared of losing their jobs to do anything.
	That is the reality of Sunday work.
	There is support for a change from the Churches, and the United Reformed Church used the phrase rhythm of life in its letter to me. Between 71 and 80 per cent. of parents say that they have no choice about whether they work weekends. They are not like MPs, who may opt to do their casework on a Sunday. Instead, they are the poorer members of societythe people who are forced to work. For them, we need to look at the legislation and to change it. For society as a whole, we need to look at it and change it. I believe passionately that Sunday needs to be different. We need a day when we can relax, meditate, play sport or go to church.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Richard Younger-Ross, Dr. John Pugh, Mr. Colin Breed, Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Anderson, Stephen Pound, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Peter Luff and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger.

Sunday Trading Act 1994 (Amendment)

Richard Younger-Ross accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to limit the hours of opening of large shops on Sundays and other specified days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 186].

Orders of the Day

Education and Inspections Bill
	  
	[2nd allotted day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 4
	  
	Education of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools

'In EA 1996, for section 316 substitute:
	316 Education of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools
	(1) This section applies to a child with special educational needs who should be educated in a mainstream school.
	(2) If no statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he should ordinarily be educated in a mainstream school.
	(3) If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, any person exercising any functions under this Part in respect of a child with special educational needs shall ensure that he is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school, having due regard to
	(a) the wishes of his parent,
	(b) the provision of efficient education for other children, and
	(c) the efficient use of resources.
	(4) Any person exercising any function under this Part must ensure the parents of a child with special educational needs are given sufficient information about the possible options open to them, including both special schools and mainstream provision.
	(5) A child with special educational needs being provided for under section (3) above shall not be educated in a mainstream school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents.
	(6) In this section and section 316A 'mainstream school' means any school other than
	(a) a special school, or
	(b) an independent school which is not
	(i) a city technology college,
	(ii) a city college for the technology of the arts, or
	(iii) a city academy..'. [Mr. Hayes.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5 Restrictions on special school closures
	'(1) No special school shall be closed by a local education authority without the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately.'.
	New clause 30 Professional standards for teachers
	'Professional standards for teachers shall require that all those receiving
	(a) initial teacher training,
	(b) assessment for induction or as a main-scale teacher,
	(c) assessment for threshold or as a senior teacher, or
	(d) assessment for suitability as a head teacher,
	shall be required to demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
	New clause 31 Permanent exclusion of pupils
	'(1) This section applies in relation to the permanent exclusion of a disabled pupil or a pupil with special educational needs by any school at which education is provided for him.
	(2) No such pupil shall be excluded unless a review has been held of
	(a) the sufficiency and effectiveness of the reasonable adjustments being made for him if he is a disabled pupil, and
	(b) the special educational provision being made for him if he is a pupil with special educational needs.'.
	New clause 52 Circulation of materials in relation to course of study
	'After section 85A of EA 2002 (inserted by this Act) insert
	85B Requirements relating to materials for courses of study in specified entitlement areas
	Where a course of study within an entitlement area specified by the Secretary of State under section 85A(1)(b) is to be introduced, the Secretary of State must ensure that all necessary materials are circulated to schools and other relevant learning providers at least one full academic year before their introduction and that due consideration is given to the time it takes to translate such material into Braille..'.
	New clause 77 Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with special needs
	'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert
	(3C) Where a statement of special educational needs is maintained by the local education authority in respect of a pupil pursuant to section 324, the period following which education referred to in subsection (3A) must be provided must be sufficient to permit the authority to amend or otherwise reassess the statement where required by law..'.
	New clause 78 Responsibility of governing body for discipline (supplementary provisions)
	'The governing body of a relevant school must not delegate responsibility for the policy drawn up under section 80(1) to anyone unless that person has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.
	New clause 79 Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy (supplementary provisions)
	'The head teacher must, in determining measures under section 81(1), show
	(a) how reasonable adjustments are made, taking account of the particular circumstances of pupils with disabilities, and
	(b) what special educational provision is made within those measures for pupils with educational needs, with or without a formal statement.'.
	New clause 80 Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with disabilities or special needs
	'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert
	(3C) The local education authority shall have particular regard to the appropriateness of educational provision made for excluded pupils where those are disabled pupils or pupils with special educational needs..'.
	Amendment No. 16, in clause 35, page 25, line 17, at end insert
	'(6A) In discharging those functions, the governing body of a maintained school shall also have regard to the provision of appropriate teaching and learning support for any child with special educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 17, in clause 37, in page 26, line 38, after 'requirements,', insert
	'which shall in particular include a requirement to give priority in admissions to disabled children and children with special educational needs who do not have a statement under section 324 of EA 1996,'.
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 38, in page 27, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	Amendment No. 19, in clause 38, in page 27, line 31, at end insert
	', and these shall include a report on the numbers of disabled pupils and those with special educational needs admitted to each school in the area.'.
	Government amendment No. 67.

John Hayes: I am delighted to speak to new clause 4, and the other new clauses and amendments in this group.
	For the benefit of the House, the new clauses that I have tabled with my hon. Friends mount a strong defence of the role of special schools in the service of special needs children. Last night, we ended our consideration of the Bill with a debate on school discipline and the quality of life in schools: their ethos and atmosphere. I hope that that debate marks the start of a war on thugs and bullies and a crusade for their victims.
	Most strong, confident, able children will survive any school, but that is not so for the most vulnerable, including children with special educational needs. They are indeed special, and they deserve our special care and concern. Every parent knows the protective instinct evoked by a fragile, innocent child as we wonder at their beauty. Imagine the intensity of those feelings in the case of a child who is especially fragile, physically or emotionally, because of special needs.
	I invite the House, in considering the new clauses and amendments, to attempt for a short time to share those emotions. I do so with little doubt about the good will in all parts of the House on the subject, which is not a matter of party affinity or prejudice. It is not, however, unaffected by ideology or even dogma. The unrelenting pursuit of the integrationist policies that followed the Warnock report in 1978 and the Education Act 1981, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, could hardly have been more dogmatic.
	That dogma has coloured our perception for too long. When introducing the Special Needs and Disability BillI was pleased to serve as a Front-Bench spokesmen on the Standing Committee that considered that BillBaroness Blackstone said in the Lords that
	commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]
	As I said in Committee, the order in which she listed those benefits is interesting. We are, of course, concerned about the social, moral and cultural needs of people with learning difficulties, but their educational needs are always more significant than any cultural or social benefits that we might derive for them, their contemporaries or their schools. I could put it more bluntly: children's futures countnot the guilt-ridden consciences of the liberal bourgeoisie.
	Closed minds have closed schools, and thus damaged lives. Of course, none of that was malevolent, and much of it was fuelled by the best intentions. But as we know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The integrationist broad-brush approach to an infinitely complex issue has damaged the educational prospects of countless children.
	Of course, many children with special educational needs, where their parents wish it and where their needs can be accommodated, do well in mainstream schools and in special units attached to mainstream schools. I celebrate the work of those schools and of the teachers so committed to their important duty. However, there are two fundamental problems with integration. The first is that the resources necessary properly to meet the stated needs of children rarely follow them into mainstream schools. That is certainly true of staff training.
	The former head of a middle school with a special unit tells of the practical costs of the policy in a letter referring to these matters published in the national media this week. He writes:
	When I was appointed head, I was not asked at the interview if I had any experience of children with special needs. I didn't. When I took up the post, I discovered that the teachers at the unit of 24 children with special needs ranging from emotional behavioural difficulties to mild autism also had no specialist qualifications. In a school of 400, these children took up at least half of my administrative time. The teachers were often off sick and most of the children in the unit would, in my view, have been better served in special schools. Inclusion may sound good in theory, but the practicalities often tell a different story.
	So it is not surprising that, according to the comprehensive review conducted by  The Times Educational Supplement last year, two thirds of teachers receive less than one day's training in how to teach children with special needs, and 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive sufficient resources to fund integration.
	That is perhaps why the amendments have been welcomed by the National Union of Teachers as an important set of improvements to the Bill. It is why the orthodox thinking on the subject among teachers and others has moved to the position that I have held from the early 1980s onwards, when I first became interested in special educational needs. I recall from that periodthe mid-1980ssupporting many struggling parents who wanted their children taught in special schools, sometimes out of authority or even out of country, because they knew that that was the best way of allowing their children to fulfil their potential.

Roger Berry: In new clause 4(5) the proposal is that a child with special educational needs
	shall not be educated in a mainstream school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents.
	Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would also subscribe to the view that a child with special educational needs shall not be educated in a special school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, and he is right that parental wishes are paramount in these matters. I would not wish any child whose parents did not wish it or whose needs were not best catered for there to be educated in a special school. As I said at the outset, the educational needs of the child should be paramount in our considerations. I know the hon. Gentleman has a longstanding commitment to the subject and a detailed knowledge of it. I pay regard to that. He, like many hon. Members, wants the best for children with special needs. This debate is about how we achieve that.

Roger Berry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is an issue about the needs of the child and the wishes of parents, which may come out in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that where educating a child in a special school is incompatible with the wishes of his parents, that child should have the right to mainstream education, why has he not made that clear in the new clause?

John Hayes: Because the war that has been waged since Warnock has not been a war against children being integrated into mainstream schools. It has been a war against special schools. The prejudice that has underpinned much of the policy that has emanated since Warnock has not been a prejudice in favour of special schools; it has been a prejudice against them. So parents who wanted their children educated in special schools have found it increasingly hard to get places in them as those schools have closed, as I shall describe later in my long but fascinating speech.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that in addition to people campaigning for special schools, as indeed they have for various reasons, there has also been a major problem for parents of a child with special needs who want that child in a mainstream school and want the necessary support? Many, many of my constituents campaign to get that support, because they want their child in a mainstream school.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes another important pointa slightly different one from the hon. Gentleman'sabout resources, which I was dealing with. It is crucial that if a child is to be successfully educated in the mainstream, proper resources and training be put in place to facilitate their progress. It is often difficult for parents to achieve a statement in the first place. The statementing process is still too often long, complex and bureaucratic. It bamboozles many parents. They are intimidated by the whole subject of their child's education and opportunities. I agree with the hon. Lady that it can be a struggle, therefore, for them to find their way through that maze, get the necessary resources put in place, get a statement that is appropriate to their child's needs, and get the education they need where they want it delivered.
	I argue for parental choice and for the needs of the child to be paramount. I take the hon. Gentleman's point [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman points in a rather theatrical way to the new clause. No doubt he will make an interesting contribution to the debate when he has a chance to speak. I want to know whether he is on the side of the mainstream thinking, or on the side of the growing weight of opinion that regards the policy that has been put in place since Warnock as having failed. Baroness Warnock thinks so, the teachers think so and I think so. Does he wish to intervene and tell me?

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: The intellect of Einstein and the eloquence of Demosthenes warrant a bigger audience than my hon. Friend enjoys today. May I put it to him that the sensible mainstream non-ideological rejoinder to the noble Baroness Blackstone in asserting the merits of inclusion should be, Up to a point, Lord Copper? In the case with which I am currently concernedthe future of the Nuffield speech and language unitit is a matter beyond argument that the reason for a significant decline in the referrals to the unit is that there is pressure on local authorities to reduce the number of statements and, in particular, to avoid wherever possible the fact and cost of out-of-area placements. Should not we accept that sometimes it makes sense to include and sometimes it does not?

John Hayes: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been a great champion of Nuffield. I was able to add to his campaign in a humble way in Committee by drawing attention to the excellent work done there. I congratulate him on all he does. He is, if I may say so, Jonathan to my David, Ernie to my Eric, Bosie to my Oscar in this respect.
	My hon. Friend says, pertinently, that part of the problem is getting the right referrals. Because of doubts about resources, there is a reluctance to statement and to refer. Consequently, parental choices and children's needs are neglected along the way. I said at the outset that I celebrated the work of all those who made integration work for the very many children who have integrated into mainstream schools and enjoyed and benefited from the experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is right when he says that a one-size-fits-all policya broad-brush approachis not right and not sufficient in relation to special needs.

Roger Berry: If the hon. Gentleman does not want a one-size-fits-all policy and wants to be non-ideological and reasonable, why on earth does subsection (5) of new clause 4 refer only to the right to attend a special school and not to the right to attend a mainstream school? That is as moderate and as reasonable as I can be.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman needs to study the new clause. Subsection (3) says:
	If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, any person exercising any functions under this Part in respect of a child with special educational needs shall ensure that he is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school, having due regard to
	(a) the wishes of the parent,
	(b) the provision of efficient education for other children, and
	(c) the efficient use of resources.
	We make it absolutely clear that, given those important caveats about efficiency and appropriateness, a child could be educated in a mainstream school or a special school to good effect.

Roger Berry: rose

John Hayes: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. If he wants to speak, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he can catch your eye later, but he is not going to intervene on me any more, much as I like and admire him, because I need to make some progress.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I will indeed give way to my hon. Friend, because whereas the hon. Member for Kingswood has had three bites of the cherry, he has had only one.

John Bercow: May I simply underline the rather obvious point that we do not need to have some sort of Manichaean divide between mainstream on the one hand and special schools on the other? I put it to my hon. FriendI think that he understands the point extremely wellthat when one intervenes early in cases of people with very severe learning difficulties and has specialist provision outside mainstream for a period, one can then facilitate re-entry to mainstream, but to suppose that all children can get by in mainstream represents a triumph of hope over reality.

John Hayes: The point is twofold. First, special needs are dynamic, because their causes are often dynamic. A child's needs will vary; that is why we need to look at the statementing process to ensure that it is sufficiently sensitive to deal with those changing needs. Secondly, a child's educational progress may mean that they are better educated at different points in their education in different places. Again, we have to be sufficiently flexible to take account of that. A good example is indeed that of the Nuffield speech and language unit. My hon. Friend knows better than I do that the average time that a person spends at Nuffield is two years, because they move in and out of provision as their needs require. He is absolutely right that a static view about appropriateness has been one of the problems with policy.

Angela Smith: rose

John Hayes: I give way to the hon. Lady, who was an outstanding servant of the House when she served on the Standing Committee.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Education Act 1996 makes it clear that one of the criteria for placing a child in a special school is the appropriateness of the provision. The new clause would remove that criterion, and in effect prioritises the efficient use of resources over the appropriateness of the provision. Does not he agree that that in itself invalidates it?

John Hayes: The difficulty, as the hon. Lady will know from her experience in this House and previously, is that in practice a balance is often struck between appropriateness of provision and resources. Sadly, integration, if it is to work well, is often very resource-hungry. I do not want to be too simplistic about this because it depends on the need of the child at any one point in time, but the resource issue that the hon. Lady properly raises is one of the reasons why integration sometimes fails. That will be an ongoing concern and something that Members on both sides of the House will want to scrutinise and raise when appropriate, both nationally and in their own localities.
	I must make a little more progress, or I will be chided by my own Front Benchers and other Members. [ Interruption.] Well, I know that they are enjoying it, but like all good things it must eventually come to an end.
	The results of last year's comprehensive survey of schools by  The Times Educational Supplement were shocking. It revealed that teachers believe that up to 25,000 children in mainstream schools in England and Wales would be better off in special schools. More recently, the National Union of Teachers has said that inclusion amounts to child abuse in some cases. It speaks particularly of those children with the most serious conditions who struggled in the confusing regime of secondary schools, where they could be taught by 10 or more teachers a week in different classrooms. Those findings followed a report that the NUT commissioned from Cambridge university. It is certainly true that teachers, head teachers and governors around the country are increasingly alarmed about the effect of inclusion when resources and training do not follow the child.
	The second problem with the policy that followed Warnock is that many secure, supportive and vastly experienced special schools have closed, as a direct result of the pernicious Warnock effect. Ninety-three schools have closed since the Prime Minister promised that things could only get better in 1997. Before the Minister tells me, as I am sure that he will, that the same number of children with special needs are educated in special schools as always were, which is usually the rejoinder when one talks about special school closures, let me give him the figures. From January 1999 to January 2005, the number of children educated in special schools has declined by more than 85,000. The truth is that many fewer children are being educated in special schools.

Jim Knight: rose

John Hayes: The Minister is about to intervene on me with an even more salient and clever point than I anticipated, as he so often does.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I have been very patient. As he is interested in statistics, I remind him that in the past 10 years, 122 special schools have closed, while in the previous 10 years, 234 closed. The trend is going in the right direction. Since 1997, more than 300 special schools have opened, 90 in the past two years. We often use the statistic about the proportion of children who are in special schools, which has gone up by 1 per cent.

John Hayes: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will know that many of those openings have been special units within mainstream school campuses. By the end of the debate, can he unpick that figure a little more, break it down, and tell us how many of those schools are freestanding independent schools with their own governing body and so on?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I have given way so often that I am beginning to tire of my own verbiage, but I will do so again.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I want to speak against the hon. Gentleman's new clause. As he has been addressing the House, I have become increasingly concerned by his repeatedly saying that the most important thing is structures, whether special schools or mainstream schools. Last week, the Education Committee went to Darlington to see a truly excellent example of an establishment that brought together a secondary school, a primary school and a special school, and where the education was entirely centred on the children's needs. The whole educational debate is moving on to be child-centred, so that we look after the educational needs of all children and stop having this obsession with structures.

John Hayes: As ever, the hon. Lady makes a good contribution to the debate. I was enjoying it immensely until she used the term, child-centred and then I began to think of all the dreadful, progressive, post-Plowden dogma about child-centred learning that did so much damage and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has drawn the House's attention on more than one occasion.
	However, the hon. Lady is right that good education depends on much more than structure. It is sad that the Bill has necessarily focused our attention on structure when we should be discussing quality, as she so often does. Good education depends on the quality of teaching and learning; leadership; the home-school environment; and a proper understanding of children's needs. That mix makes for high quality education. Most important of all is the need to raise the status of teachers and to believe in education and in those to whom we entrust our children.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He is being as generous as he was in Committee. New clause 5 deals with the closure of special schools. I am puzzled by an action by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the leader of the Conservative party, who declined to help the Vines special school in Battersea to prevent its closure. On 11 May, the governors and teachers called on him to help, but he declined. Does that mean that new clause 5 simply represents party politics? I am sad that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is engaging in that. If Conservative Members genuinely mean to prevent closures, why did their leader refuse to help? He was asked to help as Leader of the Opposition, not as an ordinary Member of Parliament.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady knows me too well to believe that I would make nakedly party political points about the subject. I do not make them. I acknowledge the point of the Minister for Schools that even more special school closures took place before 1997, when we were in government. I pointed out that the Education Act 1981 was introduced under our stewardship. My pedigree on the subject goes back to the 1980s when, as a county councillor, I defended, for example, Foxwood school in Bramcote from closure.
	I shall not comment on the case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but I emphasise that although I am not interested in my advancement in this place and I would never toady to my leader or be a sycophant, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is not only noble, an intellectual giant and a fine leader of men, but that, in a short time, he will prove to be one of our nation's greatest Prime Ministers. Is that enough?
	We should not ignore the cries from the heart and from the front line that we hear from teachers about special needs education. The practical cost of inclusion when it is not appropriate is clearly high, but that is not my main consideration. What we cannot quantify often counts most: the joy of a child who can relax, play and learn in the knowledge that he is safe; the relief of a teenager who no longer feels different; and the peace of mind of parents who simply want to entrust their children to people with the specialist skills and experience to help them achieve their potential.
	One such parent wrote movingly to  The Times only a few days ago. The letter stated:
	My 15-year-old son is autistic and has severe learning difficulties. He has flourished since he was 5 in a special school... where he has had specialist teaching and therapy and loads of support. Why on earth would I want him to be the odd one out, taught (or more realistically babysat) by an unqualified classroom assistant in a mainstream school? He isn't like most other kids and I won't have him sacrificed on the altar of political correctness... Inclusion, for kids like mine, doesn't work and never will.
	Such stories are common and the consensus among the parents of special needs children, who are surely best qualified to judge, is clear. A special needs child has special needs, which are best served by specialised teaching and care in an environment that caters for them.
	I repeat that there are many good special units, fine leaders and teachers in mainstream schools and that many children prosper in them. However, let us end the prejudice against special schools and special education. Denying parents of children with special needs the choice of a school that is tailored to their needs is dangerously proscriptive. Closing special schools denies that choice and that is why we have tabled the new clauses.
	There are many other aspects to the complex subject that we are discussing. We must consider the early identification of need much more seriously. Hon. Members with an interest in specific elements of special needs know that that is vital for autistic childrenearly identification of need can make a great difference to their progress. Hon. Members also know that it is profoundly important in the case of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties whose lives can be changed if they are statemented and supported in the right way. Hon. Members know that the Housenot the Government; I make no party political pointneeds to get better at concentrating on the critical matter of early identification of need.
	As I have said, 8 per cent. fewer special needs children are now secure in special schools. I was going to speak at length about Nuffield school, but I did that in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham asked a question about it at Prime Minister's questions and there has been an extensive Adjournment debate on it. I know that hon. Members will want to pay attention to it if they have not already done so. It is one of many examples that I could list.
	A recent report published by Rathbone, the national charity that provides advice and support to parents of children with special educational needs, is a damning indictment of the current SEN system. Evidence collected from 570 schools in 36 local education authorities reveals that alarming numbers of parents feel frustrated and let down by their child's school. Forty-two per cent. of parents questioned believed that their children had made no progress since being on the SEN register and 10 per cent. felt that they had regressed. I draw hon. Members' attention to the Rathbone study, but I will not detain the House with details now because others want to contribute to the short debate.
	Parents of special needs children already have to contend with so much. At the beginning of my contribution, I asked us to try for a moment to envisage their circumstances. Is it fair that they should also have to take the flak for a failed and failing education policy? Baroness Warnock, the architect of inclusion, has admitted that inclusion, as an aspect of her report and the subsequent Act, was disastrous.
	Special schools do a special job for very special children. The teachers and those whom they teach invariably show great commitment and immense courage. Let us now have the courage to admit that we got it wrong, as the architect of inclusion has done. Let us have no more closures, broken dreams and shattered lives. I am delighted to invite hon. Members, in the spirit of generosity that has permeated our consideration of the measure, to embrace the new clauses with relish on behalf of those very vulnerable children.

Angela Smith: I greatly enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). He must have had one of his lunches at the Savoy in order to perform so well.
	Much of our recent debate on these issues has become rather adversarial, which has polarised philosophies. A belief has grown that there is a stark choice to be made in regard to the means of educating special needs children between inclusion and special schools. That view is unhelpful, because it ignores the fact that children with special needs are as individual as the rest of us, that they often present with complex sets of needs, and that their education should to be tailored to reflect that. The hon. Gentleman's comments hinted that he understood that and showed some movement from the position that he held some time ago.
	Our debate should therefore focus on how best we can develop a spectrum of provision in each local authority area. Such a spectrum should encapsulate special schools and special educational needs units in mainstream schools, as well as learning support unitswhich have a role to playand pupil referral units, alongside provision developed and managed by the voluntary sector. In my constituency, for instance, we have an excellent facility called Pit Stop, which takes children with learning difficulties out of school and gives them the breathing space and focused attention that they need to get them back on track. Pit Stop works closely with its partner secondary schools and has a wonderful record of bringing children back into mainstream education. It is an excellent example of how special needs education can work more flexibly in the interests of the individual child.
	It is true that many special needs children need the kind of education that only a special school can offer. I have no problem admitting that. However, those children can also benefit from mixing with their peers in a mainstream setting. Increasingly, special needs professionals are recognising that a flexible mix of provision, achieved by schools working together, is the way forward. That is why my local authority is redeveloping its provision, and building new fit-for-purpose special schools across the city, alongside the development of a series of SEN units in mainstream schools. This is not an either/or approach; it uses both options.
	New clause 5 is unhelpful because it would limit the ability of local authorities to plan strategically the spectrum of provision that I have described. It would, for instance, limit Sheffield's plans slightly to reduce the number of special school places available for children with learning disabilities while increasing the number of special school places for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Local authorities are best placed to recognise and to consult on local need, and to remould the spectrum of provision accordingly.
	New clause 4 would replace section 316 of the Education Act 1996. In so doing, it would remove the requirement for local authorities to consider in the statementing process the need to ensure that a child receives the provision that his learning difficulty calls for. It would replace that requirement with proposed new subsection 3, which asserts the rights of parents. That substitution ignores the fact that schedule 27 to the 1996 Act makes it clear that there is already a presumption in favour of parental preference for the placement of a child in a particular school. The schedule also contains the important qualification that, if a statement names a school, the school should be suitable in relation to the child's age, ability and/or special needs.

Nadine Dorries: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and for mentioning the naming of a school in a statement. Is she aware that the Government have plans to build another 200 academies, and that local education authorities will not have to name an academy in their statements unless the academy agrees to be named?

Angela Smith: My local education authority has an agreement with our academies that they will take children with special needs as a top priority, and I call on all local authorities to work constructively towards doing the same.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady rightly says that there is merit in mixed provision. I entirely accept that. However, she said a few moments ago that local education authorities were best placed to make judgments on these matters. May I suggest that there is often a well-grounded concern, even among those who are not overly suspicious or cynical, that LEAs are at least partly motivated by the consideration that they need to save money where they can? In that context, is there not sometimes a conflict of interest between the LEA commissioning and providing the educational provision, and its being obliged to pay for it? Would it not be better if there were an independent element in the process, so that there would be no reason to question or impugn the motives of the LEA?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is important that the local people who elect their accountable representatives are listened to, and that they have the chance to remove a particular elected body if they feel that resources are being prioritised over need. That option is available and should be used.
	The approach outlined in the Education Act 1996 is reasonable. It directs that parental preference should be strongly favoured, but requires that such preferences should be balanced, where necessary, with a professional assessment of a child's needs. New clause 4 would effectively prioritise the requirement to secure efficient use of resources over the need to provide the appropriate provision necessary to meet a child's special needs. I therefore believe that the new clause does not merit support today.
	Amendment No. 16 is interesting because it draws attention to the needs of children who are sometimes badly served by our education system, a point to which I will return. However, the amendment, as it stands, is flawed. Non-statemented children with special needs are at present registered on school action or school action plus, but the code of practice that triggers entry to those registers allows for a great deal of flexibility in how schools interpret the criteria.
	The criteria are drawn incredibly broadly and have led to wide and significant variations between local authorities. For example, Knowsley registers 21.6 per cent. of its pupils as having non-statemented needs, Rotherham 18.3 per cent., Doncaster 12.3 per cent. and Cornwall 16.3 per cent. Given those variations, it would be irresponsible to give admissions priority to children on those registers.
	That does not mean that we do not need a debate about provision for non-statemented SEN children, because we clearly do. For instance, we need to discuss why there are such wide variations between local authorities. However, I suggest that the real challenge is to ensure that all our schools are equipped effectively to meet the needs of low-incidence special needs children.
	New clause 31 would require governing bodies to secure the necessary support for SEN children, yet the SEN code of practice already places that statutory duty on those bodies. We have all heard stories of schools that fail to satisfy the demands of the code of practice and all MPs get complaints about children whose needs are apparently neglected. That point was also made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
	I therefore ask the Minister to look closely at the evidence relating to provision for non-statemented children, and to act if necessary to strengthen the role of local authorities as champions of parents and children, in order to help to drive forward improvement in this often neglected area of education provision.

Annette Brooke: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) suggested that Warnock had been pernicious, but I remind the House of what was happening pre-Warnock. We need to reflect on that, because we certainly do not want to go back to a situation in which children were institutionalised, regardless of the nature of their special needs, with no entitlement to a full and rich curriculum, and without the ability to mix with other children that they have today. We have had one of those infamous pendulum swings that take place in education over time and, possibly, it has swung too far. If the Minister shows total resistance to all the amendments, there is a denial that something is wrong, or at least a pretence that everything is right when, clearly, it is not.
	It is well researched and proven that the main inclusion agenda, which I broadly support, has simply been under-resourced. The problem with inclusion is that it was never going to be a cheap option; it was going to cost money. Unfortunately, with pressure on resources, it has been seen as a cheaper option, which has led to certain actions. We must accept that under-resourcing has created a great deal of problems. First and foremost, it has created problems for those pupils who inadvertently, in so far as they are not in full control of their behaviour, make up 60 per cent. of exclusions. That is unhelpful for everybody. New clause 31, which we want to strongly support, picks up that point. When there is an exclusion, a full assessment of the special needs of the child involved is required.
	As we know, parents do not feel fully supported and involved in the current system, which causes problems, and many teachers in mainstream schools find it hard to cope because of lack of resources. The report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers, The Cost of Inclusion, has made a valuable contribution to the debate in highlighting the wide variety of special needs. Given that there is such an array of special needs, we should not use a single terminology. Obviously, individual children will need their requirements met in different ways.
	The NUT report also highlights that, once one moves from primary to secondary school, the situation becomes even more complex. Children with special needs relating to mental health face a huge gap in resourcing for children's mental health services. While I acknowledge the massive increase in resources from the Government, I am sure that all Members know of inadequate provision locally. That puts enormous pressure on teachers and, although I have not seen the statistics, I think that that is a good reason for teachers deciding that they cannot cope any more. That is reflected in the point that more learning support assistants and teaching assistantswhatever we like to call themare probably needed to make inclusion work. Being able to give more individual attention to children with behavioural difficulties is the No. 1 item that teachers mention to me. If they had that ability, they could make inclusion work. They want to make it work and feel proud when they do so, but it is difficult with all the constraints.
	In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), I agree strongly about the need to have a spectrum of support. That fits into my argument that we have swung the pendulum instead of getting the right balance. It is important for a local education authority to give a strong, strategic lead on special educational needs. Perhaps we should not rehearse the arguments again, but with different types of schools, including those becoming more autonomous from the local education authority, it is more difficult to promote collaboration, which is especially important in relation to special needs, between all the schools within an LEA. A special school's numbers might fall for all sorts of reasons, but it is important to keep the resources of that school together and to have outreach workers with specialities supporting mainstream schools. However, such collaborative working requires the local education authority to pull everything together. I agree that pupil referral units, learning support areas and learning zones are needed in which specialist intensive help can be provided alongside mainstream school.
	Training is essential and is probably mentioned in one of the many new clauses in the group. As we discussed in Committee, that applies to teachers, special educational needs co-ordinators and, I would add, the various teaching assistantsthat is a slight omission from the new clause concerned. I still feel nervous about the idea that any closure of a special school should have the authority of the Secretary of State. I find that a surprising proposal from the Conservatives, as they keep telling me that the Secretary of State is causing all the closures in the first place with the policy being operated. I do not therefore know why they have such confidence in central Government in that respect.
	My main concern is about the proposal that the Secretary of State shall consent to the closure of a special school only if there are places at nearby special schools. Of course, when one is managing a comprehensive policy for special educational needs, one might close a special school that does not have technology and science facilitiesbecause it was built in the years when children with special educational needs were neglectedin order to build a brand-new unit, which might be on the site of a mainstream school. I cannot see the amendment concerned working.
	Generally, we greatly support the sentiments behind this group of amendments, because this is a debate that should be held, and it would be a good idea, as the NUT's report suggests, to have an independent review of inclusion. Perhaps we should stop pretending that we can carry out a policy of inclusion on the cheap.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Lady might know that the Education and Skills Committee is nearing the end of a thorough inquiry into special educational needs. I have been listening intently to the discussion, but in relation to the automatic suggestion that there should be an independent inquiry, I assure her that the House has an effective means of carrying out good, independent inquiries.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know, of course, that the Select Committee is carrying out that inquiry. The suggestion came from an earlier debate on special educational needs and I remember him responding during that debate. I hope that I was not ignoring the role of the Select Committee by pointing out that we need to have this debate about cost and make sure that the money is following the pupils, especially in this area.
	Apart from the caveats that I have mentioned, we are sympathetic to the new clauses. I hope that the Minister will take our comments on board and give us some indication of the way forward. The severe pressures in mainstream school, which are not serving pupils, teachers or parents well, cannot continue.

Gordon Marsden: I am delighted to speak to new clause 30 and other new clauses and amendments tabled by me and my hon. Friends.
	Perhaps I can begin, as an effective way of structuring my remarks, by referring to the briefing on the new clauses and amendments, which states that they are designed to strengthen the rights and position of disabled children and those with special educational needs, with or without statements both for existing and for future schools. That follows on from discussions with the Special Educational Consortium and other disability and special educational needs groups about their concern that, in certain key areas, the Bill needs to be beefed up to ensure that the position of such children is protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has already mentioned the fact that his Select Committee is conducting a dedicated SEN inquiry. In its inquiry into the White Paper, we also took evidence on some of the issues, albeit briefly. I share the concerns of others that these matters need a broader airing on the Floor of the House, not least because they did not receive an adequate airing in the latter stages in Committee.
	The amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends and myself cover three separate areas: setting training standards in special educational needs and disability issues for teachers; ensuring that fair admissions are a school requirement and are properly monitored; and, perhaps most importantly, strengthening the rights of SEN and disabled pupils in exclusion matters and educational support for excluded categories. I merely add at this stage that that is essential in view of alarming figures showing that SEN children have a disproportionate number of exclusions from school and that parents often fail to receive sufficient support and advice in those circumstances.

John Hayes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate and, indeed, the important new clauses that he has tabled. May I invite him to suggest to the Select Committee that it looks specifically at the issue of exclusions, which was raised in Committee by my hon. Friends? It is a profoundly important issue, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to encourage the Select Committee to deal with it.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I would not want to prejudge the final deliberations or conclusions of the Select Committee, but I would sayI am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield would endorse thisthat we have taken a broad range of evidence, both oral and written, and that the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are covered by it. I wholly accept that they are vitally important.

Nadine Dorries: It is important to mention that about two thirds of all children excluded from school have special educational needs; that is, two thirds of the total number excluded at any one time.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She will see, as I continue with my remarks, that I will provide further statistics that underline her point.
	New clause 30 specifically deals with professional standards for teachers, aiming to ensure that they demonstrate an understanding of SEN and disability legislation. That is terribly important because, without ensuring the inclusion of SEN children and without specialist support services, many children will not achieve their potential. The majority of deaf children, for example, are now educated in mainstream settings, but many still need appropriate support and provision.
	I refer hon. Members to the Ofsted report of 2004, which dealt with the issue of inclusive schools and children with special educational needs and disabilities. It states that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs very well and that others are becoming better at doing so. However, the report also notes that few schools evaluate their provision for pupils with SEN systematically so that they can establish how effective the provision is, with many schools undertaking too little forward planning to ensure that provision was in place. It said that
	when they coped poorly, this was often attributed to pupils' difficulties rather than the school's inability to provide adequately.
	That is a leitmotif, highlighting an issue that we must deal with.
	Reference has already been made to the recent NUT report, The Costs of Inclusion published by Cambridge university. I shall cite from it because it provides important evidence about standards. It states:
	In the absence of professional development, teachers are sometimes 'trained' by parents, placing reliance on parental knowledge and expertise. Input on most initial training courses is minimal and few new teachers are able to develop strategies for meeting the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties. 'On the job' training is also inadequate.
	There is also sometimes a strong lack of understanding in schools of the requirements of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Discrimination Act 2001. The National Autistic Society report, Make School Make Sense, concluded that in mainstream schools, only 27 per cent. of parents say that all their child's teachers have been able to adjust their approach and teaching materials, thereby meeting their legal duties under the 2001 Act to differentiate the curriculum for SEN children.
	Finally, on the matter of training and development, I would like to cite two specific examples because I am mindful of the point made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in his opening speechthat we should view the problem in the context of real individuals, real families, real pressures and real crises rather than by trading statistics across the Floor of the House.
	These examples come from the National Autistic Society. A 13-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome attended a mainstream school, part-time, to facilitate his integration process. His mother and a neighbour went to the school to find him standing facing a wall with a female teacher and assistant head teacher on the other side of the room. She went to talk to him. He had a tantrum, but was not physically aggressive. The female teacher intervened and tried physically to restrain the boy. The tantrum worsened and the boy ended up on the floor with all four adults trying to restrain him. He is then alleged to have kicked the female teacher and the police were called. The boy was calm when they arrived and was allowed to leave the school without comment, but he was formally excluded as a result of the incident. Three months later, he was actually arrested, with no recollection of the earlier incident being made, and he probably had no understanding of why he had been arrested.
	Three important implications apply. First, there should be proper training in and guidance for staff on the appropriate use of force. Secondly, appropriate provision should be made in respect of behaviour policy and disciplinary penalties. Thirdly, as I have already said, it is vital that teachers are trained in SEN and disability legislation and requirements. A range of other examples across the autistic spectrum disorders could be mentioned. In that context, it is worth saying that there is often a false assumption that children with disabilities have low intelligence. In certain groups, and particularly among children with Asperger's syndrome, nothing could be further from the truth. That is a major misunderstanding that must be dealt with in training and related areas.
	I want to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I have had useful discussions with the Under-Secretary in the other place. We have already had a very helpful and supportive response from him and I am sure that the Minister will want to add to it today. I do not want to trespass on what he may say later, but on the issue of professional standards for teachers, I am reassured by the fact that a revised set of standards for qualified teacher status will be produced shortly. They will help to tackle some of the problems that I have mentioned. I understand why Ministers should think that there is no need to incorporate or update these references in statute, but the new clause does not preclude the updating of guidance or professional standards for SEN. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the point later, but what we are attempting is simply to set basic minimum requirements that could and should be supplemented and complemented by further guidance.
	The other point that I would make about the proposed consultation on the standards is that, assuming their wider acceptance, they will be initially used in pilot schemes onlythey will not be compulsorybecause of which we should have a further discussion of whether we need to include more explicit standards in the Bill or, indeed, in other guidance. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot develop that suggestion today, I hope that that will happen when the Bill passes to the other House.
	Time is pressing, so I want to focus specifically on new clause 80, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). New clause 80 and the associated new clauses that my hon. Friends and I have tabled are designed to address behaviour policy and exclusions. From my example of the boy with Asperger's syndrome, I hope that it is clear to the House how vital it is that we get things right in this respect. There is a lack of understanding about the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in schools. Of course the DDA requires schools to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that pupils are not discriminated against because of their disability, but the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) made an entirely valid point in intervening on me a few moments ago: two thirds of all exclusions involve pupils with SEN.
	The Audit Commission report of 2002, Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue, suggested that children with SEN, including those without statements, account for the vast majority permanent exclusionsalmost nine out of 10 from primary schools and six out of 10 from secondary schools. So it is important to evaluate behaviour policy and disciplinary penalties to ensure that they are justified in the particular circumstances of pupils with SEN and those with disabilities. It is essential that we ensure that appropriate special provision is made for pupils with SEN that will reduce the risk of unnecessary exclusion. The Department for Education and Skills has very strong guidance on the issue: schools should try every practical means to maintain the pupil in school, including seeking LEA and other professional advice and so on. Again, all too often, that advice is not taken up.
	I also want to talk about pupils with SEN who have multiple fixed-term exclusions. Almost 4 per cent. of pupils with statements of SEN and 2.6 per cent. of pupils with SEN without a statement have one or more fixed-term exclusions in a year. It is very important that children who are not registered as permanently excluded but who still do not attend schools regularly due to multiple fixed-term exclusions should be provided for appropriately, especially given the number of informal or unofficial and, quite frankly, sometimes illegal exclusions of pupils with SEN. That issue will be familiar to many hon. Members because it comes to them by way of their casework, and for many hon. Members and certainly for me, it is one of the things that makes us have such a strong focus on the importance of the issue.
	I want to refer to what has been done in this respect since September 2002, when the Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001 came into effect, and to refer to the new disability equal duty that schools and local authorities have under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Again, I am grateful to the Minister in another place and his officials for the comments and assurances that they have offered in that respect. They say that
	the resource was developed with schools and local authorities for schools and local authorities and fulfils a commitment we gave in our SEN strategy, 'Removing Barriers to Achievement'.
	That shows how some schools are already meeting the duties effectively and provides a range of guidance and training activities. I understand that that guidance will be available in printed form very shortly.
	The key phrase to consider, however, is some schools, which suggests that the standards are very good, but that they are still not being implemented widely enough. They need to be stated more explicitly and more needs to be done to implement them. Although I accept the Government's assurances on the issue and that the new duties under the DDA 2005 will help with the exclusions issue, it is important they do not consider that the job is done. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on the fact that the Government should use the opportunity of the time between the Bill leaving the House if it receives its Third Reading and passing to the other place to talk to the Special Education Consortium and the other disability charities that have made representations to discover whether such things can be strengthened above and beyond the existing DDA legislation.

Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that quite a number of the exclusions from schools and LEAs that involve pupils with special educational needs are caused by the delay in statementing those children? If the statement is not made at an early stage, all the members of staff will not be aware of that child's needs. That leads to more serious behaviour problems if it is not addressed very early in that child's life.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know of her strong interest in these issues, and she is absolutely right to pinpoint the issue of early intervention and the concerns that she expresses about statementing. Statementing is very complicated, but the sort of delays that she refers to are apparent. Despite the legislation, delays occur in providing alternative education for children with SEN who have been excluded. I caution Ministers not to believe that, merely because the extremely welcome new clauses on discipline will reduce the period in which action should be taken, we should automatically assume that that will mean that everything is splendid. A conscious effort needs to be made to monitor the implementation of those provisions, to consider the way in which local authorities deal with the issue and, where and if appropriate, to give further guidance and support in that respect.
	I want very briefly to return to where we go on these issues. It is evident from what I have said and from the helpful responses that we have received that there is no one solution to the sorts of the problems that I have been highlighting today. The solution is not just a question of legislation, nor of guidance; it is not even just a question of good practice. It is a question of ensuring that all three of those aspects are joined together.
	Yes, I believe that the Government should look carefully at the new clauses and amendments that we have proposed to see whether more could be done to strengthen the legislation, but the most important thing is that they see, and we all see, the connection between those three areas and the need to keep the pressure on, to put it bluntly. Only by keeping that pressure on will the needs of children with disabilities and SEN and of their parents be met. We must remember that a substantial number of children with SEN have parents who either have or have had special educational needs. Sometimes, it is a question not just of dealing with the needs of one generation, but of dealing with those of two generations.
	I make my final point in reference to a previous discussion. I think that someone used the word Manichaean earlier, but please let us not get hung up on the idea that the special schools issue is a complex battle between good and evil, or this year's zeitgeist as opposed to last year's zeitgeist.
	There are three excellent special schools in my constituency, Highfurlong, Woodlands and Park. They all co-operate, and in some instances there is very close collaboration. One of the schools is adjacent to a mainstream local authority school. I have visited all three regularly, and visited Highfurlong very recently. A mixed class there also included children from a local primary school and a local high school. The benefits of working together and using the same facilities were felt by both the children with disabilities and special educational needs and those without.
	As I have said, we should not become too hung up on the struggle between good and evil. While many of us accept past criticisms of special schools policiesfrom Baroness Warnock and otherswe should not assume that one set of false absolutes should be replaced with another.

Angela Watkinson: I want to speak in favour of new clauses 4 and 5. New clause 4 relates to the provision of education for children with statements of special educational needs. Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 316 refers to ensuring that a child with special educational needs
	is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school.
	There is no trench warfare between mainstream and special schools. It is acknowledged that each child has individual needs, on which will depend whether that child is placed in a mainstream or a special school.
	The wishes of the parent are very important. New subsection (3)(b) refers to
	the provision of efficient education for other children,
	which is indeed an important consideration in mainstream schools. It is essential for proper provision to be made for the support of a child with special needs in a mainstream classroom, especially in practical terms. The practical tasks involved in looking after a child who is a wheelchair user and is unable to transfer from the wheelchair to an ordinary chair, or who needs a standing frame, are very time-consuming. There must be sufficient teaching and welfare support in the classroom, so that the education of the other children is not compromised.
	New subsection (5), which has already been mentioned several times, states:
	A child with special educational needs being provided for under section (3) above shall not be educated in a mainstream school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents.
	New subsection (4) is central to the decision that parents must make. Many parents, particularly if the child with special needs is their first and they have no recent experience of schoolsperhaps no experience since they were at school themselveswill not know which is the best placement for their child. They will need to be presented with all the options and all the information that is available. They should be able to visit both local mainstream schools and special schools to gain an impression of provision there. They should be able to speak to head teachers, past teachers and assistants, and to members of the education authority, so that they can reach an informed decision about the best provision for their particular child.
	I worked in a special school for many years during the 1970s and 1980s. The first thing that comes to mind is that it is impossible to generalise about children with special needs, and that therefore provision cannot be generalised. There was a fair amount of movement between the school where I worked, which is not there any more, and local mainstream schools, in both directions and with varying degrees of success. Again, it is impossible to generalise about whether movement from special school to mainstream or from mainstream to special school will succeed. It is necessary to take account of the individual child.
	I recall one child with brittle bones who was highly intelligent. Her parents wanted her to try her luck in a mainstream school. She acquired a large degree of independence in a special school, because one of the rules was that, whatever a child's disability, that child should enjoy as much independence as possible. Unfortunately, when the girl went to a mainstream school, she was seen as a novelty: everyone wanted to help her, particularly the other children, who would fetch and carry for her. She lost much of the independence that she gained in the special school.
	There was an enormous spectrum of disability at the school where I worked, from complex conditions affecting mobility such as Freeman-Sheldon syndrome, Friedrich's ataxia and spastic quadriplegia to disabilities that are not visible, such as chronic asthma, diabetes and heart conditions. In the middle of the spectrum are all sorts of other conditions which require very sensitive handling.
	Special schools provide much more than education. Because they are so used to dealing with children with profound special needs, they are sensitive even to changes of mood, and to how a child may be affected by an incident in the classroom. They can avert episodes of children being unable to cope. It is that experience, built up over many years, that is so valuable to children, in terms not just of education but of emotional support. It enables them to cope with life as well as learning.
	I recall another child. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) observed that people are not always conscious that children with special needs are often highly intelligent. There is an assumption that they are of low intelligence, which is wrong. One of our pupils, aged 16, had very mild cerebral palsy which affected only his speech. We discovered belatedly that his own family did not realise that he understood what they were saying to him. Because they did not understand what he was saying to them, it did not occur to them that his thought processes and intellect were perfectly normal. He reached the age of 16 before we were able to discover that, and to explain to the family that they could speak to him perfectly normally, as they spoke to everyone else, and he would understand: the mechanics of speech were his only problem.
	Speech and language have been mentioned several times today. Even in the 1970s, there was a chronic, long-standing shortage of speech and language therapists. Since I have been in the House, I have conducted some research into why that might be. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of it. We have plenty of colleges and courses involving speech and language. They are fullthey are not short of studentsand they have a high success rate. Many students qualify, and there is not an unusually high drop-out rate. The mystery is, where do all the students go when they have qualified? They do not seem to go into the national health service, because my primary care trust cannot recruit speech and language therapists, and they do not go into special schools. The challenge for all of us is to redirect speech and language graduates to special schools and the NHS, where there is an enormous need for speech and language therapy. Whatever other problems they may have, if children cannot communicate with people whom they meet, that is almost the worst handicap that they could suffer.
	Like the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, I have three superb special schools in my constituency: Corbets Tey, Dycorts and Ravensbourne. None of them, thankfully, is threatened with closure, which would be unthinkable. I cannot think of a single pupil in any of those schools who would be better off in a mainstream school. The children are flourishing, and their educational and social needs are being met. The schools also provide a support system for families. They often have great difficulty in conducting anything resembling what we would recognise as a normal daily life, particularly if they have children on the autistic spectrum. One function of those schools is giving additional support to parents and siblings. With the best will in the world, mainstream schoolsgiven how busy they are and the enormous demands and pressures that are placed on themdo not have the time to provide such extra services to families with children with special needs.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend made some important remarks a moment ago about the need to improve and to maximise recruitment of speech and language therapists, and to get them into the national health service and, in many cases, special schools. This has been a good and stimulating debate so far, and I want to underline her point by saying that it is incumbent on all of us in public service to re-double our efforts on that front. It always strikes me that, when a popular local school or hospital is to close, there is a ready supply of articulate protestors. However, when a special school facility is to close and that closure will affect only a relatively small number of children, many people either are not aware of that threat and shortage of specialists, or, frankly, do not care enough about it. So Members across the political spectrum have a duty to step up efforts to meet the challenge.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. We are all only too well aware of the shortage of such specialists. All of us do whatever we can, wherever we can, to encourage the greater availability of speech and language therapists. Even in the 1970s, children with speech and language problems in my school had a visiting speech and language therapist, who was able to give each child a quarter of an hour a week. Anyone who knows children with speech and language problems knows that that is hopelessly inadequate. So we all need to work very hard on the issue.
	I turn to new clause 5, which deals with restrictions on special school closures. As I said, it would be unthinkable for any of the special schools in my constituency to close. New clause 5(2) states:
	The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately.
	I should be surprised to learn that there is a single constituency in the entire country in which special school places are available. Most such schools have no spare capacity and are unable to take more children who would like to be placed there. It is highly unlikely that any area has sufficient spare capacity to enable a special school to be closed in the light of the caveat in the new clause. That caveat is important in protecting special schools and the enormously good work that they do.
	I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support not just new clause 4, but new clause 5.

David Blunkett: I confess to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that, at one time, I was dogmatic. I was dogmatic for a brief periodI promise that it was briefwhen I came out of a special residential environment. I spent six years in integrated education for the first time, on day-release from work and at evening class, before going into full-time integrated education for the first time at university. I was dogmatic because my experience had been a difficult one. My schooling had not offered the academic achievement that we would want for our own children, and, as with so many schools, the physical environment left something to be desired.
	In the 1960s and 1970s, special schools, be they day or residential, were not what they are today. One precise reason why Baroness Warnock has changed her mind on this issueand why, by the time that I became Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I began to see that it was absolutely crucial not to be dogmaticis that the world has changed.
	When I went to primary school, most of those whom I was at school with had just one special need: they could not see. By the time that that school closed because the number who simply could not see had dropped, the incidence of multiple disabilitythe multiple special needs that children hadhad grown to the point where that type of education could no longer cope. So the school closed not because people wanted to eliminate a facility, but because it needed to be re-shaped for a different era, in which medical science had eliminated the original causes of special need, but had also kept alive children who previously would not have been in school at all, because they would not have reached school age.
	So we are dealing with a different environment, and I appeal to the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) did, to come together. None of us wants a system that does not take account of the special needs of the individual child and their family. Various issues have been raised this afternoon, such as the proper training of teachers, professional development, the training of learning support workersthere are now 110,000 such workers in mainstream schools throughout the country; they did not exist nine years agoand the ability of learning mentors to develop, alongside special educational needs co-ordinators, the specialism of guiding and supporting families and others in the school environment. We need to recognise that those issues are crucial.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools on intervening to get the statistics right, and I believe that the Government are listening and responding. However, I have two or three regrets that I want to put on the record. In 1998, when I was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, we moved towards regional planning. I believe strongly that, without it, we cannot maintain centres of excellence, expertise and the necessary facilities. Even with the best resources in the world, no single education authority can possibly provide for every specialism and every need. In any case, the level of expertise across the country is limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) described what my own authority is doing, but there are authorities such as Derbyshire that come very close to being exemplars. It is at the local level that an understanding must be shown of people's specific needs. However, we can do things at a regional level that cannot be done at the purely local. I now regret that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 did not place greater emphasis on ensuring that that happened.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend is making an important point, and I have been of the same opinion for years. Small unitary authorities, in particular, are unable to provide the breadth of special needs education that larger authorities such as Derbyshire can provide. I hope that the Minister is listening to my right hon. Friend.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Derbyshire has understood the message that is coming across loud and clear in this very good debate: unless we train teachers and assistants properly, and unless they are prepared for what is likely to happen, there will be resistance to sensible integration. If integration is done badly, it should not be done at all. We therefore have to get the balance right in providing training and expertise in centres of excellence. If special schools that can cater for specific requirements are no longer available, the expertise will die with them.
	Providing good teaching in the classroom means providing adequate and supportive resources not just in the school itself, but during out-of-school activities, in order to make integration a reality. I took slight umbrage at the beginning of this debate at the idea that inclusion is a dogma, which is very silly. Inclusion is not a dogma; it is a sensible objective, which is to be met by not attempting to include children in mainstream education where doing so would be detrimental to them and to those around them.
	That raises one further point. Because multiple disability needs and special needs are very different, we have to adapt the way in which we behave towards and think about them, in order to deal with those different layers. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned the non-statemented special educational needs child. I hope that the Government will place greater emphasis on supporting schools in that regard. What my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said on the issueit was repeated by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)is absolutely true, and, although it pains me to say so, I also agreed with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said.

John Hayes: Would the right hon. Gentleman join the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) in calling for an independent review of some of these issues? I have in mind particularly the issue of non-statemented special needs, which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and which the right hon. Gentleman rightly amplifies now.

David Blunkett: I am hoping that the Education and Skills Committee review that is taking place, and the Ofsted thematic inspection will also highlight what needs to be done in a constant monitoring review. I learned as Secretary of State that monitoring is even more necessary than vision or legislation in order to achieve anything. That was the point that I was going to make about the 2001 Actwe left it with a hope and prayer that people would do the right thing, but limited progress has been made in the past five years.
	In supporting schools with a high number of special educational needs pupils, we need to recognise the point that has been made this afternoon that such needs can be passed from one generation to another, not just genetically but through the gross reinforcement of disadvantage that often leads to the exaggeration and emphasis of special educational need.
	I found out that two of my older sons had quite severe dyslexia at a time when the teaching profession dismissed dyslexia as though it were a middle-class fad. Because I was emerging into the middle class and have always been tenacious, I managed to engage with the Dyslexia Instituteit has now changed its namewhich did a superb job in finding out what was wrong. I do not think that my sons would mind me saying that the change in confidence, self-esteem and behaviour was dramatic once what was required was identified. Early identification, sensible assessment, proper decision making about the right environment, and training and support for teachers are all more important than any disagreement over whether an individual school should close. I hope that that will be the message from today's debate.

Nadine Dorries: We have all been elected to represent the most disadvantaged in our constituencies. From that perspective, and in the spirit of consensus, I hope that the Minister will accept that any points that I make are not party political but made with the view of representing those of my constituents in the unfortunate position of not receiving appropriate educational provision.
	I wish to speak about new clause 5, with brief reference to new clause 4. I notice that the Minister mentioned the number of schools that the Conservative Government closed before 1997, and he was right to do so. All Governments have made mistakes in education, and it is about time we all started getting it right. However, I am reminded of the point made by Baroness Warnock when she described the need to close down special schools because too many children were being isolated in special provision. She said that the pendulum had swung too far. Perhaps not all those 200 schools needed to close, but too many have and that has resulted in a crisis, which is why hon. Members are receiving so many representations on the issue.
	One of the organisations with which I liaise contacted me this morning and asked me to make a point about something that the Minister said yesterday. I have not had a chance to check  Hansard yet and I was not in my place when it was said, but the organisation said that the Government referred to the school admissions code as a panacea to protect the rights of children who benefit from a statement of special educational needs, but we should all be aware by now that the protection of children with statements of special educational needs is not dictated by the admissions code or the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but by the criteria specified in the Education Act 1996, especially schedule 27. I have now put that on the record on their behalf.
	The Minister mentioned the 300 schools that have opened, and I have tabled questions to ask where they are and how many children they will take, because they are not in my patch nor in those of the many people who have asked me to speak on their behalf. It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) say that schools were opening in her area, because I wish I had such provision in my constituency. Perhaps some areas are better served than others, and the crisis arises in areas that are poorly served. When things go wrong for a special needs child, they can go spectacularly wrong, and that is why we tend to hear about such issues in that way.
	The way in which many of our SEN children are educated is described to me as a scandal. I do not like to use that word, because it is emotive, but when we hear some of the stories, such as that told by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) about the little boy against the wall, we realise that it is shameful that children are educated in such environments today. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the statistic that two thirds of all excluded children have special needs, including nine out of 10 of those excluded from primary schools and six out of 10 from secondary schoolssome 27 per cent. of autistic children. I prefer to use the word expelled as do the organisations I talk to, because it expresses the nub of the matter. I shall talk in a minute about a six-year-old girl who has been excluded, but the reality is that she has been expelled from future education. Can hon. Members imagine the outcry if 27 per cent. of the generic school population was excluded or expelled each day? There would be an outcry. Despite that, special schools are still being closed.
	When Lord Adonis gave evidence to the Education and Skills Committee I asked him whether the Government had a policy of inclusion, because I believe that the inclusion agenda may be driving the closures. He said that inclusion was the will of Parliament, which was a very strange answer. I asked the Minister in Committee whether the Government had a policy of inclusion, and he did not answer, so I ask again. Do the Government have a policy of inclusion? That is the fundamental question in special education today, and education authorities, parents and governors all deserve to know.
	While the Government refuse to confirm whether they have an inclusion agenda, there are policies in the background that are driving forward and enabling that agenda. For example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 states quite clearly:
	If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the parents or the efficient education of others.
	Those words lead to the presumption that all children should be educated in the mainstream, and they are backed up by the Removing Barriers to Achievement document, which acts as a reinforcement to the inclusion agenda.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) asked whether the Secretary of State is going in and closing down special schools. Of course he is not walking into a special school and saying, This school closes today, but LEAs are implementing policies that they believe are the Government's agenda. LEAs are reluctant to statement children or to refer them to special schools. In a neighbouring constituency, referrals from the LEA have dried up completely since the 2001 Act. As a result, the local special school will be financially unviable by the end of the educational year. Referrals have dried up because the LEA is reluctant to statement. It believes that it is carrying out the wishes of the Government and using the 2001 Act as its justification not to statement or refer. It is also using the Removing Barriers to Achievement document to back that up.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady will know from her recent Adjournment debate that I agree with what she has been saying. Does she agree that the issue is not only money, but a political pre-disposition at local and national level, in some cases, towards general inclusion, instead of the objective interests of the particular child?

Nadine Dorries: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I want the Minister to clarify whether the Government have a policy of inclusion or not, as LEAs appear to be carrying out such a policy without looking at individual children's specific needs.

Roger Berry: May I ask the hon. Lady the question that I put earlier to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who did not answer it? I want to know what is the Opposition's policy in this area. New clause 4(5) asserts that parents should have the right to choose a special school, but the new clause as a whole contains no assertion that parents should have the right to choose a mainstream school. Does new clause 4 represent the Opposition's policy?

Nadine Dorries: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has answered that already, but new clause 4(3) states that the responsible person shall ensure that a child
	is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school.

Roger Berry: With respect, I was referring to new clause 4(5).

Nadine Dorries: In fact, my speech is concerned with new clause 5, which deals with the closure of special schools. However, our policy is that children with special educational needs should have the right to be educated in a special school. If they want to be educated in a mainstream school, they should have that right too.

John Hayes: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) is being untypically obtuse, even though he has been in the House a long time. Does my hon. Friend agree that he should know that new clause 4, in proposed new subsections (3) and (5), deals with the question that he poses? Proposed new subsection (3) is not subsumed by proposed new subsection (5), and neither is it incompatible with it.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for rescuing me from my difficulty.
	I want the Minister to say whether the Government have a policy of inclusion, because he may be aware of the 2020 group, whose sole purpose is to ensure that all this country's special schools are closed by 2020. Its founder, Richard Reisner, told the Select Committee that the group had been given 460,000 in Government funding. Would an organisation campaigning to keep special schools open be given an equivalent amount of funding? By giving the money to that group, are not the Government endorsing its policy?

Angela Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's kind words about Labour Sheffield, but if the Government have weighted their policy so heavily towards inclusion, why have authorities such as Sheffield been able to develop such a broad spectrum of provision?

Nadine Dorries: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that I have absolutely no idea of what happens in Sheffield.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nadine Dorries: I wanted to mention a remark made to me yesterday by a Labour Member, but I shall leave it till later, when it will be more in context. She said that the policy was not the same in all areas of the country. However, I shall give way now.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the hon. Lady accept that the Education Select Committee heard a lot of evidence from local authorities? They are planning a range of provision to meet special educational needs that involves special schools, mainstream schools and special units in mainstream schools. The range of provision is becoming wider all the time.

Nadine Dorries: I agree that LEAs perform what is called provision mapping, which works for some but not for others. The fact is that 27 per cent. of children with autism are excluded from school every day. Those are the national statistics, and they apply to all LEAs, regardless of their provision policies.
	I hope that the Minister will follow Baroness Warnock's lead in respect of inclusion and say, when he replies to the debate, that he will not continue with the policy. I have mentioned a little boy called Jack a number of times in the House, and the one thing that I want him to take away from this debate is the fact that the Minister mentioned his name in the wind-up.
	Jack was the first child to come to my surgery. He has special educational needs, and on that visit he emptied my bookcase, turned my chairs upside-down and fizzed the lights on and off. He was excluded from school: his parents had taken him out of the school because the teachers could not cope with his very specific needs. He was beginning to be bullied, as happens to many autistic children in mainstream schools.
	Jack now attends the Moorhouse school, thanks to the fact that his well educated and articulate parents were able to go to a SENDIST tribunal and argue his case. He is flourishing there, but he offers a perfect example of what happens when a child is placed in the wrong schoolsomething that happens to many children in this country.
	Some children have very complex special needs because they have physical as well as learning difficulties. I spoke recently to a teacher who has in her class a child with severe disabilities. The funding associated with that child has gone into the school pot, and the teacher has only a teaching assistant to help her. She believes that the funding allocated to a child should be velcroed to that child and used only to help him or her.
	The teacher to whom I am referring gave evidence about her job which was used in a recently published report. Once an hour, she has to suck out that child's' tracheotomy tube. She has to wash her hands, use the suction machine to clear out the tracheotomy tube, then wash her hands again and return to teaching the class. The process takes 10 or 15 minutes, every hour of her working day. Is that really something that teachers should be doing, on top of trying to teach the other 28 children in the class the national curriculum? The teacher has had training only from the child's parents. She has had no specialist instruction, not even in how to lift the child. Is that to be the role of teachers? Do the Government expect them all to have a special needs child in their classes?
	I shall conclude by quoting the evidence that Baroness Warnock gave to the Select Committee, which reinforces my belief that LEAs are driving forward a policy of inclusion. Although the Bill emphasises parental choice as the great good, Baroness Warnock said:
	I think that produces a hollow laugh on the part of parents with children with disabilities because they have no choice. Everything depends on the assessment that their child gets and it is the local authority which conducts the assessment and also has to pay the money and naturally the parents do not believe the assessment is truthful because it is pitched as low as the local authorities can get away with because of the money. They really have...no choice.
	Parents of children with special needs do not have any choices. It is sad that special schools are being closed, and I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the inclusion agenda will be abandoned.

Jim Knight: This has been a good debate, which deserves more than seven minutes for my response. It is occasionally a frustration of ministerial life that we do not have anything near as much time as the Opposition or Back Benchers when we respond.
	I think that we are agreed on both sides of the House that we need a range of provision to deliver for the range of children's needs. We all agree that there is more to be done, but the picture is in shades of grey rather than the black and white presented by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
	I shall say a few words about Government policy. Schools and local authorities already have clear duties in relation to children with special educational needs and disabilities. Our policy is to achieve better outcomes for those children by ensuring that provision is tailored to individual needs and that all children have access to a broad and relevant education and maximum engagement with their peers. In that respect, I point out to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), there is inclusion, but I am mindful that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, inclusion is a good aspiration but it has to deliver appropriate education for every child, which may be in a special school.
	Our policy is also that agencies work together to provide children and families with co-ordinated services. We see the fruits of that in high-quality teaching and learning, in children's centres and extended schools and in better arrangements for accountability for the outcomes achieved by different groups of pupils in the new relationship with schools.
	We are backing that change with real investment. Funding per pupil with SEN has increased by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms. Budgeted expenditure by local authorities is 4.1 billion, about 13 per cent. of all education spending, and the building schools for the future programme is delivering better schools and facilities for those children.
	Ofsted reports improved local management of SEN, growing awareness of the benefits of inclusion and some improvements in practice. It also notes that many of the children with the most complex needs are in special schools or other specialist provision. I used statistics about those schools in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings: all 300 of those schools are new; they are not units added to existing schools. Contrary to what is reported in the media, they demonstrate our commitment to special schools alongside mainstream provision.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: I can respond to interventions or to the debateI am in the hon. Gentleman's hands.

John Hayes: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I take his point, but will he tell us why in 2001 the Government dropped the provision in the Education Act 1996 that special education should be related to the learning difficulty of the child? Why did they drop the appropriateness provision in that Act?

Jim Knight: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer because I was not an Education Minister at the time. I can only imagine that it was because the provisions that were already in place and that we had introduced were delivering what he described.
	The proportion of children with SEN statements and taught in special schools has increased by about 1 per cent. over the past five years, despite a fall in the total number of children with statements. We are not an anti-special school Government. We want children's special educational needs to be met so that, as far as possible, exclusions are unnecessary. Through our long-term SEN strategy, we are working to build the skills and capacity of schools to meet children's special educational needs earlier and more effectively.
	We are mindful, however, that the Select Committee on Education and Skills is looking into SEN and we want time to consider the outcome of its inquiry. The Bill will go into another place after a very good debate, although I cannot respond to the amendments or the various contributions that have been made. My noble Friend, Lord Adonis, has met my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and we shall continue such engagement.
	We will continue to listen to the House and to try to improve things. I am particularly impatient about the exclusion figures for children with special educational needs. It is not right that two thirds of excluded children have special education needs. The issue should not divide us; we should all work together to resolve it.

John Hayes: This has been a good debate, albeit a short one. It has illustrated the strong feelings on the subject on both sides of the House and perhaps, as various Members have said, that we need more time to debate the issues over the coming weeks and months. I hope that the Government will make more time for that.
	I do not have time to deal with all the points that were raised in the debate, but important things need amplification. Of course, the continuing and particular role played by special schools must be defended, but non-statemented special needs must be given closer consideration, as was pointed out. As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said, we need to look at the training and resources provided to our teachers to educate children who are especially vulnerable and have particular needs. Where schools are doing the right thing they need our support, whether they are mainstream or special schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, that means providing the services of speech and language specialists and educational psychologists.
	This has been a good debate. I am determined that the Opposition will continue to fight the battle on behalf of special needs children. We will continue to defend special schools. We will not relent in defending those vulnerable people. I hope other Members will join us.
	 It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [23 May].
	 Question put and negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 5
	  
	Restrictions on Special School Closures

'(1) No special school shall be closed by a local education authority without the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately.'.  [Mr. Hayes.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 369.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 26
	  
	Requirements as to composition of governing bodies

'(1) The governing body of a maintained school, Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts may comprise
	(a) foundation governors;
	(b) elected parent governors;
	(c) staff representatives; and
	(d) community representatives.
	(2) Foundation schools shall not appoint a majority of governors who are foundation governors and in no case shall governors who are foundation governors outnumber elected parent governors.'.  [Sarah Teather.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 434.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 24
	  
	Admissions administration

'(1) Chapter 1 of Part 3 of SSFA 1998 (Schools admissions) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 89 insert the following section
	89A Admissions administration
	(1) Admissions administration will receive all applications for places made on behalf of pupils seeking admission to maintained schools, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts within its area.
	(2) Admissions administration will determine the awarding of places at maintained schools within its area having regard to the arrangements which are to apply for that year, established by any admissions authority within that area, including special arrangements provided for in section 91.
	(3) The admissions administration shall then make the list of places awarded available to maintained schools, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts within its local area and notify parents of the results of their application.
	(4) The admissions administration shall always act such that the identity of the individual applicants cannot be determined by the schools for which they have applied or expressed a preference during the admissions process, until the list of places awarded is made available to schools and parents by the admissions administration.
	(5) If a school believes that the admissions administration has failed to adhere to its admissions criteria, as set by the admissions authority, it may appeal to the admissions forum, which may review, and report on their findings.
	(6) The person responsible for admissions administration within a local education authority must be employed or commissioned by the local education authority.
	(7) In this Chapter admissions administration means the person responsible for the administration of arrangements for the admission of pupils to any school within a local education authority's area..'. [Sarah Teather.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 39 Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot
	'(1) 'The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient which may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act, for the purposes of giving full effect to the principle set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that no admission arrangements for any school providing secondary education may, following the commencement of a school year on or after 1st August 2010, continue to make provision for the selection of pupils by ability or aptitude other than under section 101 of SSFA 1998 (permitted selection: pupil banding) unless the continuation of such selection has been approved in a ballot of parents of pupils attending primary schools from which such pupils may by choice of their parents transfer.'.
	New clause 40 Independent body to review admission arrangements for secondary education
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the passing of this Act, appoint an independent body to review the arrangements in England relating to the admission of pupils for secondary education in Part 3, Chapter 2 of SSFA 1998 and section 36 of this Act.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall invite representatives of
	(a) teacher associations,
	(b) local authorities,
	(c) parent groups,
	(d) employer bodies, and
	(e) such other persons as he considers appropriate,
	to make submissions to the body established under subsection (1); and the report of that body shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than 1st April 2008.
	(3) The Secretary of State, at the request of the independent body , may commision research into the admission of pupils for secondary education and related matters.'.
	New clause 41 Secretary of State to implement independent review body report
	'(1) Following the receipt by him of a report of the body established under section [Independent body to review admission arrangements for secondary education], the Secretary of State shall enter into consultations with such bodies as he considers appropriate on proposals to give effect to the recommendations of that body by a date no later than 1st September 2008.
	(2) Following such consultations as are mentioned in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient, which provision may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act so as to give effect to proposals whether or not recommended by the body established under section [Independent body to review admission arrangements for secondary education] for the reform of the arrangements for admission to secondary schools in England.'.
	New clause 42 Definition and use of oversubscription criteria
	'The requirements referred to in section 84(2) of SSFA 1998 shall include references to the following categories of pupils and these categories shall be taken as the criteria to be applied in the event of oversubscription in the order as set out below
	(a) children with a statement of special educational needs;
	(b) children in public care;
	(c) children for whom the school is most appropriate on medical or social grounds;
	(d) children whose sibling or siblings will be enrolled at the school on the first day of term and who permanently reside within the area from which the school's intake is normally drawn;
	(e) children for whom the school is the nearest appropriate school to their home;
	(f) safe walking distance from the school;
	(g) ease of access to the school by public transport;
	(h) transfer from a named feeder primary school.'.
	New clause 43 Restriction on oversubscription criteria in code for school admissions
	'The requirements referred to in section 84(2) of SSFA 1998 shall exclude the following from the criteria to be applied in the event of oversubscription
	(a) giving higher priority to children whose parents are more able or willing to support the ethos of the school or to support the school financially or in some other way;
	(b) giving higher priority to children according to the occupational or financial status of their parents;
	(c) giving higher priority to children according to the educational or social group or background of their parents;
	(d) seeking or take account of, in giving priority to a child or in deciding whether or not to offer a place to a child, reports from his primary or nursery school about past behaviour or attitude;
	(e) allocating places at a school on the basis that a sibling or other relative is a former pupil;
	(f) the behaviour of other members of a child's family, whether good or bad, including a good or bad attendance record;
	(g) parent's marital status;
	(h) giving priority to children whose parents are staff or governors or who have another connection to the school;
	(i) giving priority to children who (or whose parents) have particular interests, specialist knowledge or hobbies;
	(j) giving priority to children based on the order in which applications were received;
	(k) in the case of grammar schools, giving priority to siblings of pupils.'.
	New clause 45 Admissions report by local education authority
	'After section 85B of SSFA 1998 insert
	85C Admissions report by local education authority
	(1) A local education authority shall once in every school year make a report to the admission forum containing the following information
	(a) the authority's plans for acting in accordance with the code for school admissions,
	(b) the proposed admission arrangements for every school, including academies and city colleges, in the local education authority area,
	(c) the number of applications for each year group admitting pupils for each school,
	(d) the number of pupils accepted for each year group and, if oversubscription criteria are used, the number of pupils selected using each oversubscription criterion, and
	(e) the area which the school recruits pupils compared to the area in which the school is situated.
	(2) The opinion of the local education authority shall be included in the report as to
	(a) whether the proposed admission arrangements for each school complies with the code for school admissions,
	(b) what changes, if any, each admission authority, or as the case may be the governing body of each academy or city college, should make to their admission arrangements to comply with the code for school admissions,
	(c) the accuracy and appropriateness of information given to parents seeking admission to the school, and
	(d) whether
	(i) the totality of the admission arrangements for the area produces fair access to schools for all pupils, and
	(ii) if not, what further action the authority intends to take to ensure fair access to maintained schools and academies and city colleges..'.
	New clause 46 Administration of pupil admissions
	'(1) Chapter 1 of Part 3 of SSFA (admission arrangements) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 88 (admission authorities and admission arrangements), in subsection (2) after means the leave out arrangements and insert criteria.
	(3) In section 89B (co-ordination of admissions arrangements)
	(a) in each of subsections (1) and (2) leave out co-ordinating and insert administering,
	(b) leave out subsection (5), and
	(c) in subsection (6) at end insert in particular that the local education authority admits pupils to each school in accordance with the admission criteria established by the admission authority for that school under section 89 (procedure for determining admission arrangements).
	(4) Leave out section 89C.'.
	New clause 47 Academy admission arrangements
	'In subsection (4) of section 482 (Academies) of the Education Act 1996, insert after sub-paragraph (a)
	(aa) conditions and requirements imposed for securing that
	(i) the proprietor of the school consults on the admission arrangements as if the school were a maintained school under section 89 of SSFA 1998 (procedure for determining admission arrangements),
	(ii) pupil admissions to the school are managed by the local education authority under section 98B of SSFA 1998 (co-ordination of admission arrangements), and
	(iii) objections relating to the admission arrangements are determined by the adjudicator under section 90 of SSFA 1998 (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State)..'.
	New clause 51 Parliamentary control of code for schools admissions
	'(1) Section 85 of SSFA 1998 (making and approval of code of practice) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute
	(4) If, within the 40-day period, each House resolves to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall issue the code (or revised code) in the form of the draft, and it shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
	(5) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed code..'.
	New clause 70 Admission of children of staff
	'Any child of staff currently serving at a maintained school shall be eligible for preferential admission at the discretion of the school governors.'.
	New clause 75 Admission of excluded pupils
	'(1) A local education authority may direct any school in the authority's area to admit a pupil who has been excluded from any other such school.
	(2) Before making a direction under subsection (1) the local education authority must
	(a) consult the head teacher of the school to which the direction is to be issued;
	(b) have regard to local policies on exclusion; and
	(c) have regard to the well-being of the pupils who are likely to be affected by the direction, whether directly or indirectly.
	(3) In this section school means
	(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school, or
	(b) an Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts.'.
	Amendment No. 119, in page 26, line 8 [Clause 36], leave out from 'ability' to end of line 11.
	Amendment No. 120, in page 26 [Clause 36], leave out line 21.
	Amendment No. 121, in page 26, line 25 [Clause 36], leave out from 'omit' to end of line 28 and insert 'subsections (1) and (2).'.
	Amendment No. 112, in page 26, line 28 [Clause 36], at end insert
	'(5) In section 100(1) of SSFA 1998
	(a) after there is insert
	(a),
	(b) for (a) substitute (i),
	(c) for (b) substitute (ii), and
	(d) at end insert , and
	(b) as compared with the arrangements in force at the beginning of that year and of each subsequent year, no increase in selection..'.
	Amendment No. 103, in page 26, line 29, leave out clause 37.
	Amendment No. 93, in page 26, line 38 [Clause 37], after 'requirements,', insert
	'including requirements as to the criteria to be used in the event that an admissions authority receives more applications than they have places to offer (oversubscription),'.
	Amendment No. 104, in page 26 [Clause 37], leave out line 40.
	Amendment No. 94, in page 27, line 29 [Clause 38], leave out from 'England' to end of line 31 and insert
	'shall consider the report published by the local education authority under section 85C (admissions report by local education authority) and prepare and publish its response to this report, which may include rejection, as may be prescribed.'.
	Amendment No. 87, in page 27, line 43 [Clause 38], at end insert
	'(1D) An admission forum for the area of a local education authority in England shall prepare and publish annual reports to the Schools Commissioner on such matters connected with the admission of pupils to maintained schools in that area as may be prescribed.'.
	Amendment No. 95, in page 29, line 28 [Clause 41], leave out '89C' and insert '89B'.
	Government amendments Nos. 48 to 55.
	Amendment No. 110, in page 37, line 18, leave out clause 48.
	Amendment No. 122, in page 117, line 9 [Clause 171], at end insert
	'(2A) Section 36 comes into force on 1st September 2008.'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments relate to what is probably the most controversial aspect of our debate. What has concerned many people is the proposal in the Bill and in its forerunner, the White Paper, to give schools more freedom to control their admissions. People are worried about that because all the evidence suggests that when we give schools that freedom, over time they tend to move towards choosing the brighter children and the more middle-class children.
	I am certain that hon. Members will have constituency examples of when that is not the case, and I would not want to say that that is what happens in all schools, because clearly it does not. However, the worry is that the evidence suggests that, on the whole, schools will use that power to choose those children because of the pressure to drive up standards, particularly in the light of league tables. We have seen evidence from the Sutton Trust, Simon Burgess from the university of Bristol, and Rebecca Allen from the Institute of Education, and it all suggests the same outcome.
	In response to that widespread concern, hon. Memberscertainly Liberal Democrat and, in particular, Labour Members, if not Conservative Membersput pressure on the Government, who responded by changing the proposals in the White Paper so that the Bill now states that all admissions authorities should act in accordance with the code of admissions, rather than just having to have regard to that code. That was a welcome change.
	The draft school legal code was published while the Bill was in Committee and was debated extensively in Committee. It touched on many things that worried me and was a welcome addition. Some things in it are very good. They include the ban on interviewing and prioritising children in care and those with a statement of special educational needs. However, I particularly welcomed the focus on the softer aspects, such as the tendency for schools to put poorer families off applying by advertising expensive trips and expensive uniforms and, specifically, for schools to use information known about a family gained through either brothers or sisters attending the same school or through parent open evenings.
	The difficulty with many of those things is that they require a subjective judgment about whether the school has used that information in coming to a decision on admissions. My fears were fuelled by an ICM poll published in the press a few months ago, which suggested that one in four head teachers cheat on their selection criteria to cherry-pick pupils. The latter aspect of that concerned me most: they were quite specific that they do it to cherry-pick pupils. If a head teacher cheats, that undermines trust in the system. It undermines the trust of parents, students and other schools in the same local authority area. Above all, it undermines the Government's good work and their efforts to improve admissions and tackle covert selection by introducing a code that is welcome in many ways.
	The safest way to remove the danger of cheating is to allow someone else to administer the system. New clause 24 would allow schools to continue to set their own criteria in accordance with the code. Under that code, admissions criteria must be objective. They must not be subjective, and they must be easily understood. However, if they are objective, why must the school administer them? Anyone could do so, as they could be written down and measured. It would be better to give the duty to an impartial body. The local authority, which oversees and co-ordinates strategic provision, is best placed to administer the system. It does not have any incentive to cheat as it does not favour one school over another. It simply wants all its schools to do well and to raise standards across the area.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady takes the view that local authorities do not have any reason to favour one school over another in admissions. Does she accept that if a school is undersubscribed the local authority may have an incentive to try to move pupils into it?

Sarah Teather: It would have to act in accordance with the code and, indeed, with the selection criteria submitted by the schools and admissions authorities. We have included a safety net so that if a school believes that the administering authority has not administered admissions in accordance with its own selection criteria, it can appeal to the admission forum.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady appears to accept that the local education authority may not be unbiased and impartial. Why, therefore, is it better at administering admissions than the school itself?

Sarah Teather: No, I do not accept that. The local authority is far more likely than a school to be impartial, as it does not have an incentive to favour one school over another or to improve the standard of only a few schools. We have seen a great deal of evidence of cheating by schools, so to increase confidence in the system we must try to give the administration of the system to an impartial body. That would help to iron out the problem of cheating to which Members have drawn attention, including prior knowledge of the family. A child's brothers and sisters may be pupils at the school, or staff may have met parents at parents' evenings. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) highlighted the case of a faith school in London. Various procedures allow parents up to half a dozen contacts with the school before they submit an application. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that a school would not have prior knowledge of a family in such cases.
	New clause 24 proposes that admissions criteria should be set by the relevant admissions authority, whether the school or the local authority, in accordance with the code. Those policies would then be submitted to a named local authority officer, who administers admissions in accordance with the criteria. Parents would apply centrally to the local authority, which would make application a great deal easier. Obviously, this is not the case in London, but in some areas parents are forced to submit applications to successive schools. Parents would state their preferred school and the authority would sort the applications, matching the children against schools' criteria.

Jim Cousins: How would that system deal with applications across a local authority boundary? There are a considerable number of such applications.

Sarah Teather: There is no reason why local authorities should not work together on the system.
	The key point is that the names of applicants should be kept from the schools. Obviously, applicants are not completely anonymous, as names are required for administrative purposes, but the proposal would deal with the problem of cheating. The local authority would send acceptance letters to parents and inform schools of decisions. Under the system, head teachers and governors would not see the list of names, so they would not be able to pick out difficult parents or children who are in trouble. In response to our debate in Committee, we have added extra protection so that if schools believe that the local authority has failed to administer the system in accordance with the criteria, they can apply to the admission forum for a review. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury will speak to his new clause 46, which is similar to our new clause. The Local Government Association believes that the proposal would improve the transparency of the system, and individual councils are enthusiastic about it. Teaching unions have expressed concern about allowing schools more freedom to set admissions. They, too, favour a more co-ordinated system. New clause 24 allows schools to continue to set their own criteria, but it removes the danger of cheating.
	New clause 39 leaves decisions on selection at 11 to local discretion, but it reverses the presumption in favour of selection, which would cease to exist unless local people asked for it in a ballot. That is a sensible way forward, and we shall support the proposal if it is pressed to a vote. As all Front-Bench spokesmen no longer favour selection, and would certainly not re-introduce it, I hope that, despite the fact that the issue was once divisive, the proposal will unite the entire House.

Damian Green: rose

Sarah Teather: I am afraid that I have finished.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who seems to have a skewed view of the principled stance taken by head teachers. I do not believe that there is mass cheating by head teachers who deliberately manipulate the admissions system to boost their results. If that is happening, we need to take action against head teachers who are behaving in such an unprincipled way, but I do not believe that it happens to the extent that she suggested.
	Listening in Committee to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) speaking about admissions, and to other Labour Members over the years, it is hard not to conclude that the new clauses tabled by him and his colleagues are driven primarily by ideology, rather than by a concern for raising standards in our schools. That ideology is based on the notion that the quality of a school is determined solely or largely by the intake of the school. That is not true. What makes a good school is the quality of the teaching, the quality of the head's leadership, and the ethos and approach to behaviour and discipline taken by the school.
	There are schools in extremely deprived parts of the country where behaviour is impeccable because the head has in place strong systems and procedures that ensure that poor behaviour is dealt with swiftly and predictably. There are schools in leafy county towns that have appalling behavioural problems because of weak leadership. There are schools that have intakes where the most academic pupils have been creamed off to the local grammar school, yet those schools achieve examine results higher than most comprehensive schools.
	Wellington high school in Trafford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is in effect a secondary modern school, where the 40 per cent. most academic go to the grammar school. At Wellington high school last year, 73 per cent. achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, 66 per cent. including English and Maths, and there are no GNVQs in that figure. That figure73 per cent.is way above the national average of 56 per cent.
	By contrast, there are many schools in leafy prosperous towns and suburbs that languish with just 35 per cent. achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, and in a number of cases schools with much worse results. In a small minority of schools, the intake can be so challenging that it becomes overwhelming and we need to intervene, but in the vast majority of the 3,500 secondary schools, the intake is largely not as relevant as what happens within the school.

Helen Jones: If the hon. Gentleman believes what he is saying about the intake, can he explain the Sutton Trust figures that show that the best performing comprehensive schools have the lowest proportion of children on free school meals?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady is making the same point as the hon. Member for Brent, East, who is leading for the Liberals. I do not believe that head teachers throughout the country are deliberately manipulating their intakes to boost their results. There may be a small number of exceptions to that premise, but I do not believe that it is happening on a large scale. It is not possible to engineer an intake to accurately reflect the local population to the last detail. I suspect that most of those results are capricious, rather than deliberately manipulated.

Sarah Teather: The problem is that heads have admitted that. It is not as though someone has done a survey and suspected that the system may have been manipulated. A Headspace survey reported that 38 per cent. of head teachers admitted breaking their own criteria.

Nick Gibb: I have not met such a head teacher when I have been going round. I ask head teachers, Are you on principle and deliberately manipulating your intake? and they always tell me no.  [Laughter.] The point that I am making is a more serious one. Even if head teachers are unprincipled and are manipulating their intakes to boost their results and those do not reflect the quality of the school generally, my argument is that the intake is largely irrelevant to the quality of the school. It is the teachers, the leadership, the ethos and the behavioural policies that make for a good school, not the intake, whether that is manipulatedor not.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying such glowing tribute to Wellington high school in my constituency, which is an excellent school. May I support the excellent case that he is making with another useful statistic? In the value-added league tables, of the 21 schools adding most value between the ages of 11 and 14, 18 were grammar schools. That surely proves exactly the point that my hon. Friend is makingthat is it what happens inside the school, rather than the quality of the intake that is most important. The value added in the grammar schools is even better.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The value added tables reveal which schools are genuinely adding value, regardless of the intake. They measure the added value to the particular child, based on their ability level and attainment before they arrived at the school. My hon. Friend's point is well made.
	I believe that, at the vast majority of the 3,500 secondary schools, the intake is largely irrelevant. If we ensure that all academic subjects taught in the school are set or streamed by ability, the intake is even less relevant, because if we ensure that classes are made up of children of a similar ability, the ability levels elsewhere in the school have no impact on that class. The problem in many of our comprehensive schools is that the vast majority of academic lessons are taught in mixed ability classes. According to Ofsted, 60 per cent. of lessons are in mixed ability classes: 49 per cent. of English lessons, 69 per cent. of geography lessons and 71 per cent. of history lessons are mixed ability. Even in science, where setting is even more important, a third of lessons take place in mixed ability classes.

Annette Brooke: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the ages to which his figures relate? It is often difficult to set by ability at age five, even when the children might be doing simple science lessons. Does he agree that a whole range of subjects, including PE and art, are perfect for social integration to take place?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady makes a good point. First, all the figures that I have cited are for secondary schools. Secondly, I am talking only about academic subjectsthis is not about PE or any other non-academic subject. We do not disagree on that.

Helen Jones: May I try to tease out some more precise figures from the hon. Gentleman? Does he have any information on the age range for which mixed ability teaching is used in secondary schools? It is quite common for secondary schools to begin teaching subjects in mixed ability classes and move to setting later on. That will affect his percentages for subjects such as history, because all children will take them to begin with, but fewer will do so once options are chosen.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady could be making a valid point, but the figures do not show that. She is right in that there is a slightly higher proportion of mixed ability teaching in year 7, but it does not vary much beyond that. In fact, in the GCSE year, it dips from the previous year, so that there is less setting than in the year before. Broadly speaking, it goes right across the five years of secondary education and is not confined to year 7. Even if it were, that would be an error too. We need to set and stream by academic subject in all years in secondary schools.
	Maths has the highest proportion of lessons set by ability86 per cent. That still means, if my maths is correct, that one in seven maths lessons in comprehensive schools takes place in mixed ability classes. That is very much a linear subject that should not be taught in mixed ability classes. Again, this is not confined to year 7 classes.
	There is overwhelming evidence, particularly research by Jim Kulik of the University of Michigan, that if one sets by ability and tailors the curriculum to each ability grouping, with accelerated and enhanced curricula for the most academically able sets, one will see a huge rise in educational attainment in the top sets, with no falls in attainment in the lower ability set. The research also shows a small rise in self-esteem in the lower sets as pupils are given the time, space and attention to learn rather than drowning in a mixed ability group. At the top end, there is a small fall in self-esteem as bright pupils find themselves competing with other bright children.

Anne Snelgrove: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rigid setting is as bad as blanket mixed ability teaching? Perhaps we should be looking at banding instead of rigid setting, so that young people who would be in a top set in mathematics but a bottom set in English have ways of moving about in that band.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady uses the term, rigid. Setting is by definition flexiblethat is how it differs from streaming. The more homogenous a particular group of children is, the easier it is to teach them and the better able one is to tailor the curriculum to that particular set level. There is a philosophical divide between usI will not be able to convince the hon. Ladybut I hope that through these debates we can convince the public that this is the kind of education that we want for our children.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great conviction on these issues, and in many ways I agree with him about setting. I find the Ofsted figures difficult to understand in terms of the level of mixed ability teaching. However, I have a specific question for him. If there is general agreement across the House, and within the educational fraternity, that setting is a good thing that should be used in all academic subjects, does that mean that the Conservative party has now ceased to advocate grammar schools and selection by ability? If we followed his thesis, we would not need it.

Nick Gibb: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen the text of my speech. I am about to deal with that precise point, if he will hold his horses for a moment. I am not a million miles from his view.
	Such issues are more important than whether a group of children has access to an especially good school or whether a different group of children should have access to it. All that debates about admission, codes and prescriptive methodologies for determining intakes do is substitute one set of injustices for another. The genuine problem is that there are simply not enough good schools. If there were more good schools, the heartache and anger of parents who are unable to get their child into their preferred option would be less.
	The National Audit Office report has been much cited in the two days of debate on Report. It reported that 23 per cent. of secondary schools underperform and that it is likely that a similar proportion is coasting. Ofsted reports that 34 per cent. of secondary schools are no more than satisfactory according to its grading system and that a further 10 per cent. are inadequate. Forty-four per cent. of schools are therefore either satisfactory, which we no longer regard as good enough, or inadequate. That is a sad and alarming indictment of our education system.
	No one claims that the causes started in 1997, and they did not start under the previous Conservative Government. They date back more than 40 years. We all need to tackle the underlying causes in a practical and non-ideological way. We must examine the evidence of what works and not what fits our ideological stance. It is clear from the research evidence and the success of schools that set that, when comprehensive schools set all their academic subjects by ability in all year groupswith flexibility, so that children who develop later in a subject can move up to a higher ability groupand have smaller classes with more experienced teachers focusing on the lower attainment groups, far-reaching improvements occur in the quality of education in those schools.
	If we can recreate in the top sets the academic education that grammar schools and many independent schools offer their pupilsan education that stretches children academically and enables them to fulfil their educational potential with an enhanced or accelerated curriculumthere is no need to undergo the upheaval of reintroducing the 11-plus and selection, and re-establishing grammar and secondary modern schools in areas where they were abolished more than 30 years ago.

Anne Snelgrove: There will be no need to reintroduce the 11-plus because a grammar stream will be created in an alleged comprehensive school. That is why I questioned the hon. Gentleman closely earlier. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will be delighted by the news, but we should warn the general public that that is what the Conservative party intends. It is not right. Children could be prevented from going further and faster by the policies that the hon. Gentleman proposes because they would be excluded from the grammar stream.

Nick Gibb: No, I do not propose that. We are trying to create a grammar school sort of education for the top sets in a school. Because the school would be on one campus with a setted structure, there is flexibility so that children who might have gone to a secondary modern at 11 but develop later, when they are 13 or 14, can move up the sets into the grammar stream. The grammar stream would not have a glass ceiling, which prevents children below from getting into it. There would be flexibility. Children could well be in the grammar stream for English but not maths. The purpose is to enable us to have the grammar school type education that the country needs but to make it flexible so that children of all abilities can move into those sets if they develop. It is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Lady suggests.

Sally Keeble: Does the Conservative party intend to scrap its commitment to grammar schools, or is the hon. Gentleman saying that it will scrap it but not just yet? What is he saying about Conservatives' commitment to grammar schools and the 11-plus?

Nick Gibb: I said that we would not reintroduce the 11-plus and selection. We are committed to getting all academic subjects in all years in secondary school setted by ability in a flexible system. I probably share the hon. Lady's view that the binary division that took place at 11 with the 11-plus was socially divisive. It is uncomfortable for me to see children who have been friends at primary school being forced to attend separate campuses, with one turning right at the end of the road and the other turning left. That is why the Conservative party has taken the position that it will not bring back selection when it returns to office. Nor did we do so when we were last in office.

Matthew Taylor: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument. Would he go further and advocate getting rid of the grammar school system in places such as Kent and Buckinghamshire? He has just described the system as socially divisive. If it is socially divisive in one place, surely it is in another.

Nick Gibb: The answer to that question is no

Matthew Taylor: Why?

Nick Gibb: I will come to that in a moment.
	We believe that we can ensure that academically able children receive a grammar school-type education within the campus of a comprehensive school. To do that, however, we need comprehensive setting, and most comprehensive schools are far from being in that position at the moment. However, teachers and head teachers are far more in favour of that approach than of the upheaval implicit in any return to wholesale selection.
	To deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), we will protect and safeguard the existing grammar schools and schools that have partial selection. It would be a criminal act to destroy schools that are providing first-class education to thousands of youngsters in this country. That is why we oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and his colleagues, which propose the end of selection by 2010 unless ballots are held in the areas in which grammar schools exist. I believe that any such ballots would come out in favour of retaining the grammar schools, because they are enormously popular in the areas that have them, even among parents whose children do not attend them.

Phil Willis: I am sure that Mr. Woodhead, who is listening to this debate, has now abandoned his support of the Tory party. That cannot be a bad thing. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not only about selection by ability in the 160 or so remaining grammar schools, but about the 10 per cent. selection by aptitude that exists in some schools? As he knows, we have been debating this matter for many years. Does he advocate getting rid of that arrangement, given that all the schools in the brave new Conservative world would have setting for academic subjects?

Nick Gibb: Chris Woodhead is a friend of mine, and we discuss these issues at great length. I am sure that he will retain his support for this party.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question about the 10 per cent. selection, that arrangement is designed to achieve something different, namely to create an ethos in a specialist school. We are in favour of schools being able to establish an ethos, in relation to music, languages, maths, computing or whatever. We are therefore in favour of retaining the 10 per cent. selection on that basis.
	To return to my point about the amendment on grammar schools tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, I believe that any ballots to retain those schools would be won, but why should the schools have to go through such a time-consuming and distracting process just to satisfy the ideological yearnings of a few Labour MPs?
	Our amendments Nos. 103 and 104 seek to restore to the Bill its original White Paper vision by deleting the change proposed in clause 37(4):
	In subsection (3), for 'to have regard to' substitute 'to act in accordance with'.
	The starting point of the whole saga of the admissions code is section 84 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which states:
	The Secretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, a code of practice containing such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate.
	It goes on, in a very non-prescriptive way, to say:
	The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions.
	Subsection (3) of that section contains the famous phrase:
	It shall be the duty of
	LEAs and governing bodies
	to have regard to any relevant provisions of the code.
	Clause 37 of the Bill does two key things. First, it replaces the phrase
	a code of practice containing such practical guidance
	with the far more prescriptive words
	a code for school admissions containing such provision
	as the Secretary of State thinks fit. It also replaces the looser phrase to have regard to with the far more authoritarian wording
	to act in accordance with.
	As everyone knows, clause 37 was introduced into the Bill as a result of pressure from the Labour rebels, and following the Secretary of State's letter of 6 February to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee. In that letter, she said:
	As you know it has always been our intention that the Code of Practice on admissions should have real force.
	She then said,
	we are concerned that recent legal judgements may have weakened the perceived force of the Code, so we will close the legal loophole so that admission authorities must 'act in accordance' with it, rather than having to have 'regard' to it.
	On the first of those assertions, I looked in vain in the White Paper for a reference to the code having real force. The nearest I could find was at paragraph 3.22, which states;
	No one approach towards admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to ensure that all self-governing schools...are free to use the approach to fair admissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code.
	Of course, in all their radio, television and newspaper interviews in the period between the publication of the White Paper in October last year and the concession letter of 6 February this year, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State categorically ruled out giving the code of practice any more compulsion than it already had. As the Prime Minister said at his press conference on 23 January:
	I can't agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions, that this code becomes statutory.
	The second slightly misleading statement in the letter of 6 February is that the change of heart was prompted by recent legal judgments that may have weakened the perceived force of the code. The implication is that those legal judgments occurred after the publication of the White Paper in 2005, hence the need for a last-minute change of mind. The case of the London Oratory school was decided on 17 December 2004, some 10 months before the publication of the White Paper. The truth is that it is simply an unnecessary concession made for internal Labour party management reasons and has nothing to do with what the Prime Minister or the then Secretary of State thought, in their best judgment, was in the best interests of the education system.
	We believe that clause 37 is far too prescriptive and that circumstances not envisaged by the drafters of the code might require more flexibility. For instance, it should be permissible for a school to refuse admission to a child whose parents refuse to sign a home-school agreement. We agree with the White Paper at paragraph 3.25, which states:
	We recognise that no form of admissions arrangements can increase the number of places at an oversubscribed school. That is why we are continuing to increase the number of good schools and the number of places in good schools.
	That should be the focus of our attention rather than the over-obsession with admission arrangements.
	I also agree with the Prime Minister, who was absolutely right when he said on 24 October:
	Local authority efforts to create equity often produced deadening uniformity, with child-centred learning and a rigid adherence to mixed ability teaching too often failing to raise expectations and meet basic standards.
	The focus of an incoming Conservative Government will be to raise standards in all our schools so that children of all backgrounds will have a greater opportunity to attend a good school.

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Gentleman has talked about time scales and changes of mind, but I seem to recall that the Conservative party changed its mind on selection by ability in a remarkably short space of time. Was that for internal Conservative party reasons or external electoral reasons?

Nick Gibb: No, it is genuinely based on the belief that if we set flexibly but comprehensivelynot rigidlywithin a school, all the upheaval involved in returning to selection would not be necessary. We need to make sure that many of our comprehensive schools have an enhanced and accelerated curriculum that stretches the brightest children. In too many comprehensive schools, that is not happening. We are concerned about standards in schools, and we think that the best approach is universal setting in our comprehensive schools.
	I believe that parents want concentration on standards in our schools. They want more good schools and they want their local school to be a good school. That, rather than developing ever more complex and prescriptive admission arrangements designed to allocate a dwindling number of good school places, will be our focus. That is why we will move amendment No. 104 at the appropriate moment, and I hope that it will have the support of the whole House.

David Chaytor: I shall speak to the group of amendments tabled by myself, but may I say first that I agreed completely with many aspects of what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said? He provided a powerful critique of selective admissions systems, which will also underpin my own argument in support of new clause 39. I am therefore extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points.
	Today's debate, furthermore, could not have taken place without the Conservative party's dramatic switch of policy over selection earlier this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) asked why that happened, and it may well have been due to the authoritative YouGov poll published in  The Daily Telegraph last December, which showed that only 20 per cent. of parents supported selective admissions policies to secondary schools. That amounts to focus-group policy making with vengeance, but I am delighted that the Conservatives have listened to the focus group that  The Daily Telegraph offered them.
	I shall speak mainly to new clause 39 and briefly to new clauses 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46 and 47 in reverse order. New clause 47 argues the case for bringing academies into the overall admissions arrangements of other schools. New clause 46 is similar to new clause 42, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), but the latter has the advantage of dealing specifically with anonymised admissions.
	New clause 45 raises the question of the local education authority's role as the co-ordinator of local admissions arrangements and the monitor of compliance with them. I feel slightly ambiguous about it because I was one of the first to argue that the admissions forums should have a new enhanced power to monitor compliance. I am very pleased to say that that is now in the Bill and I am grateful to the Government for including it. I would still like to test the argument and I hope that the Minister will think further about it in due course. Perhaps we should ensure that the admissions forum has the full support of the LEA, particularly in respect of secretarial and administrative functions.
	New clauses 43 and 42 simply place within the Bill the admissions criteria that are deemed to be either acceptable or unacceptable in the current code of practice. There has been a long-standing debate about whether the code of practice or elements of it should be incorporated into the Bill, perhaps as a schedule, and these new clauses make the argument for having a full list of approved over-subscription criterianot non-permitted criteriaplaced directly in the Bill. We have already established a precedent for doing so with some over-subscription criteria: for example, we have agreed that the ban on interviewing, the priority given to children in public care and the promotion of banding should all be in the Bill, so it is illogical if other approved criteria are not in it.
	New clause 41 is consequential on new clause 40, which argues, given that the Bill brings about significant changes to admissions arrangements, that we should establish, six months after the passing of the Act, an independent review body to monitor and assess the operation of all aspects of admissions arrangements across the country.
	I wish to speak at slightly greater length to new clause 39 and I intend to press it to a vote. The new clause deals almost entirely with process rather than with the arguments between supporters and opponents of selection. An argument about process can take place now only because, for the first time in more than 30 years, we have a consensus between the three main political parties about not returning to selective admissions policies as an organising principle of secondary education in this country. For that, I am hugely grateful to the leader of the Conservative party, who changed the policy earlier this year. I believe that they have listened

Ian Stewart: Do not go too far!

David Chaytor: No, they have listened carefully to the arguments and considered the evidence about the impact of selective admissions policies. What new clause 39 does is to deal simply with the anomaly that is left. If all three parties accept that a return to the universal 11-plus system is not acceptable because of the various disadvantages of which we are all aware and about which I shall say more later, it remains completely inconsistent that we should support that system in the 36 English local education authorities where it still applies. I do not argue that there is a simple solution, and I do not argue that the Government should simply decide to change things overnight. The purpose of my new clause is to suggest a process whereby the remaining anomalies in the 15 wholly selective areas and the 36 areas that contain large elements of selection can be resolved.
	At the heart of the issue is the fact that it can be resolved neither by local people alone nor by national Government alone. New clause 39 suggests that the Government establish a clear principle, namely that selection is not a desirable form of admission to secondary education, and that they set an end date beyond which selection will no longer be permitted. It proposes 2010 as the end date. At the same time, it allows the current ballot arrangements to be maintained. Parents would be able to engage in debate locally, consider the alternatives and express their views, and would have the right to vote to reintroduce selection if they were so minded.

Phil Willis: Let me add my voice to the consensus to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
	The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which introduced the current arrangements for balloting to take a grammar school out of the selective process and recreate it as a comprehensive, was deeply flawed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has only been one ballot, involving Ripon grammar school in north Yorkshire, and that process was deeply flawed because of the nature of the constituency.

Damian Green: What happened?

Phil Willis: I have described what happened. The balloting arrangements are deeply flawed: the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has said that under his new clause the same arrangements would apply. If that is so, the same flawed system determining who can vote would be transferred to this Bill. I think it is appalling that the vast majority of people in the community surrounding a grammar school do not have a say, although it is their local school.

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He has rightly forced me to clarify my point about the balloting arrangements. Under new clause 39, there would still be a ballot, but the new clause says nothing about the details of the arrangements. I agree that the current ballot regulations are unfortunate. They are designed to protect the status quo, are limited in terms of how they describe the electorate and provide for different kinds of ballot depending on local circumstances; on whether the area is wholly selective, or is largely non-selective but contains individual selective schools. Different rules apply in different circumstances, but I think that the argument for reviewing the ballot regulations is powerful. I hope that if the Government are minded to adopt the new clause at some point, we shall in due course discuss the possibility of a more democratic form of electorate and procedure.

Graham Brady: Thankfully, common sense prevailed in the Ripon ballot. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least demonstrating a greater commitment to democracy than the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), but given his belief that there should be a role for ballots and for democratic choice, why does he not have the courage of his convictions? Why does new clause 39 not allow the balloting process to be available to parents in areas containing comprehensive schools that are failing?

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question in a Manchester BBC studio about two weeks ago. The answer I gave him then is the answer I shall give him now. I am sympathetic to that argument, for the simple reason that if the Conservative party in my constituency went into the next general election arguing wholesalein a ballotfor the reintroduction of the system that was scrapped in Bury 30 years ago and to which hardly anyone wishes to return, I should be delighted to fight the election on those terms.
	The majority of my colleagues would also welcome that opportunity. If we were to find that the modern, newborn, compassionate Conservativesthe friends of the poor and the dispossessedwere suddenly, in the next general election, fighting ballots throughout the country to take us back to the 1950s, we would be delighted. So the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) makes an important point, and I am inclined to table a handwritten amendment to that very effect.

Graham Brady: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does, and I might even be tempted to vote for it. However, surely those ballots ought not to be fought by political parties. Is not his point that this is a matter for parents to decide? If he believes that parents in areas that are currently selective should be able to decide, why will not he give a choice to parents in areas with failing comprehensives, who might choose a grammar school?

David Chaytor: The point is that the new clause would deal with the remaining anomalies in the system. I take it as read that the three main political parties have settled their argument about what happens in the majority of the country. Of course, there is an internal debate in the Tory party between those who deeply resent the change of policy and those who are prepared to put up with it; but that is a matter for the Tories, and I suggest that they go somewhere else and have that internal debate.
	New clause 39 has to be seen together with new clause 40. In retrospect, it may have been preferable to incorporate the latter into the former, because new clause 40 calls for an independent review of the admissions arrangements. So the strength of the argument is simply this. If the Government accepted the new clause, they would build on the all-party consensus that no longer accepts selection as the organising principle for admission to secondary education by following through the logic of that consensus and establishing the end-date of 2010. Six months after the Bill has been enacted, an independent review body would be established to examine all aspects of our admissions arrangements, and to study the evidence of the impact of admissions arrangements in different parts of the country. The review body would report before 2010, and we could then have an informed debate based on evidence, not on ideology or prejudice. Parents would then form their judgments in the light of that informed debate. That is precisely why I am confident that if such a procedure were adopted, very few parts of the country would choose to reintroduce selection.
	It is hugely significant that since the great change to our admissions policies under the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970, and under the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974of course, we all know which Tory Secretary of State was responsible for abolishing more selection in our system than anybody elsewe have been unable to have that informed debate.
	I draw an analogy with the way in which we have tried to resolve other intractable problems when the political parties have themselves found it difficult to reach agreement. All the parties agreed that it was necessary to get a neutral third-party expert to consider the funding of higher education, and we invited Ron Dearing to take charge of the commission dealing with HE funding. The Government did not accept everything in the Dearing report, but it was subsequently considered to be the authoritative body of evidence and argument, and now we all refer to it. I am delighted that, in another of the Tories' historic flip-flops, they have adopted our policy on HE funding.
	I also draw attention to the impact of the Tomlinson report on education reform for 14 to 19-year-olds. That issue was a political football that the parties kicked about for a number of years. There was a desperate need for consensus, and we resolved the problem by setting up an independent review body under the chairmanship of Mike Tomlinson.  [Interruption.] NoMike Tomlinson suggested that there would be a 10-year period of reform and change, and the Government have taken the first steps as part of that reform.
	Let us move outside education and consider the analogy of pensions policy, the implications of an ageing work force, and the balance between the responsibilities of the state, the individual and the employer. What did we do to deal with that issue? We brought in a former president of the CBI and gave him the task of building a national consensus on pensions policy.
	We can draw some lessons from the Turner report. A few months ago, there was very little public support for the raising of the state retirement age. Because of the work of the Turner commission and the informed debate that followed the publication of its report, the Government are now confident enough to raise the retirement age and a majority of the public are in favour because they now understand the arguments clearly. That is the best analogy I can give for the way in which I would envisage new clause 40 operating, with an independent review body of admissions. We need a neutral expert to lead the national debate and gather all the evidence. With such a lead, we could kill off all the old sterile arguments about which kind of school is best and how many A to C grades this school has as opposed to that school. We could really focus on the impact of selection in our system and, once we did so, people could form their views accordingly.
	I assumeI may be wrong, and they can correct me laterthat the Conservatives have reached their new position because they understand that selective admissions policies lower achievement overall. They understand, because they have read the recently published evidence from Professor Jesson, chief academic adviser to the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust; because they have considered what the National Foundation for Educational Research has been saying for many years; and because they have read what the London Institute of Education has said. The Conservatives know that the brightest children perform equally well, if not slightly better, in all-ability schools than in selective schools. They know that the impact of selection is to depress results overall; to depress post-16 participation rates overall; and to increase levels of segregation overall.
	The Tory party also knows the differential between selective and non-selective schools, in respect of the proportion of children on free schools meals. It is slightly over 1 per cent. in selective schools and almost 17 per cent. in the population as a whole. Similar figures exist for children with special educational needs and, in some parts of the country, from minority ethnic groupsan issue that has not been examined in the detail that it deserves.
	The Tories also know what we find if we compare Northern Ireland, the most selective area with the highest levels of segregation, with Scotland, with the least segregation; it compares favourably with the Scandinavian countries that manage to combine equity and high standards. In Northern Ireland, the number of adults in the population who left school with no qualifications is twice the number for Scotland. In Scotland, the number of adults in the work force with degrees or degree-equivalent qualifications is almost 50 per cent. higher than in Northern Ireland. That is the most dramatic evidence that selective systems depress results overall, lower levels of attainment and increase levels of social segregation.

Patrick Hall: The points that my hon. Friend has just made about Northern Ireland and Scotland will, I presume, enable Ministers to support his proposal, because they have taken the enlightened step of tackling selection in Northern Ireland.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend anticipates my final remarks. The great advantage of new clauses 39 and 40 is that they combine the merits of the Government's policy in Northern Irelandestablishing a commission and setting an end date for selectionwith the merits of the policy in the remaining selective areas of England, which is to leave the decision to parental ballot. The beauty of the new clauses is that we get two Labour policies for the price of one. I commend the new clauses to the House and confirm that I wish to press new clause 39 to a Division.

Damian Green: I wish to speak against unnecessary disruption in our schools and in favour of local choice, and therefore I speak against new clause 39, which was supported with characteristic eloquence and wrong-headedness by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). That is a reminder to us all that the prejudices of old Labour are still around, and that the party is still fighting the battles of the 1960s and 1970s.
	I have not participated in education debates for a few years, so this afternoon's exchanges have been quite nostalgic for me. I have been struck by how insular and inward looking our debates on education are. The point underlying the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was that there are different ways to achieve an excellent academic education. That is true, especially when one looks at what happens in the rest of Europe.
	By and large, the schools in Holland are big comprehensives that contain significantly different streams. In any given Dutch town, one can find what is effectively a grammar school on the same site as a good technical vocational school. Incidentally, it is the lack of the latter schools that is the real, long-term failure of British education.
	The German approach is different, with different types of schools being provided. Over the past 30 or 40 years, both countries have gone through good and bad periods. Their results have been better than ours some of the time, and at other times they have been worse, but both have managed to ensure that debates about education have been about improving children's life chances. They have not allowed them to deal in social engineering, class warfare or any of the things that have bedevilled education debates in this country. I am depressed to find that those influences still affect our debates here.
	It is a shame that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) has left the Chamber. She did not respond to my earlier intervention, but I was fascinated to hear her commit the Liberal Democrats to supporting new clause 39 and therefore the abolition of all grammar schools. I shall be interested to see whether my Liberal Democrat opponent in Ashford at the next general election says the same thing, and whether his counterpart in the neighbouring constituency of Folkestone and Hythe is pledged to abolish the grammar schools in Folkestone. Over the years, I do not remember Liberal Democrats ever saying such things in counties such as Kent, but the party's policy may have changed under the hon. Lady's tutelage.

David Chaytor: Nothing in new clause 39 would lead to the abolition of any school. It may cause some schools to change their character, and it would open up many good schools to more young people. Fair access and fair admission are at the heart of that new clause.

Damian Green: New clause 39 would enable the prejudices of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to be imposed on schools in my constituency and elsewhere, against the wishes of the people who live in our towns and cities. That is what I object to.

Annette Brooke: I feel that we have already debated the question of parental views and voting. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is perfectly reasonable that parents should have a say in how the education system is run?

Damian Green: Yes, I do think that it is reasonable. That is precisely the point that I am making.
	I oppose new clause 39 because I saw the damaging effect of anti-grammar school campaigns in the late 1990s and the early years of this century, both in my constituency and across Kent. Those campaigns damaged all the schools in the area, and not just grammar schools, because they diverted effort, money, resources and energy from education. People who should have been involved in improving school standards took up opposing positions in destructive political campaigns that, in the end, achieved nothing because they had no support.
	In Kent, for example, the Government's regulations meant that the anti-grammar school campaigners needed 45,000 signatures to trigger a ballot. When they set off, they were extremely confident that they would achieve that number, but that was in the late 1990s heyday of new Labour, when it was both new and popular. It is neither of those things today.
	After months of trying, however, the campaigners were forced to admit that they were giving up, as they were able to raise only 7,000 signatures in the whole of Kent. That was not just a failure, it was a pathetic failure. Despite the opinion polls quoted by the hon. Member for Bury, North, the campaign showed that the parents who knew most about education did not want it to be disrupted. A majority of those parents would have known that their children would go not to grammar schools but to the high schools or comprehensives that we have in certain parts of Kent, yet not only would they not vote to change the system, but they would not even sign the petition to trigger a ballot.
	That is clear evidence, in addition to the one ballot that actually did take placein Ripon. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) could not even bring himself to say what happened, which was that when parents were faced with a choice they voted to retain the existing system. In Kent, which is a much larger area, parents did not even want a ballot. However, the anti-grammar school campaigners came back again and again, and the energies and efforts of too many people were spent for too long on something that was not helpful to any school in the area.
	I hope and expect that the common sense of those on the Treasury Bench, including the new Secretary of State, means that people of reason and common sense on both sides of the House will vote against the new clauseagainst the hard left of the Labour party and their natural allies, nowadays, in the Liberal Democrats. I am sure that they will be defeated, because when parents have had the chance to speak they have spoken loudly against that type of change. They do not want to destroy the existing school system.

Gwyn Prosser: rose

Damian Green: Ah, a Kent MP.

Gwyn Prosser: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of Kent that I do not recognise, and nor would my colleagues or the heads and staff of Kent secondary modern and high schools. We did not reach the tripping point because the level was set far too high. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conversations between people who, like me, were campaigning for change, and the parents of primary school children were not on the lines of, That's all right, I know my child's not going to get into the grammar school, but let's vote for the status quo anyway. It was the ambition of all of them to get their children into grammar schools, but they did not. If we held those conversations again, the answer would be very different.
	Finally, has the hon. Gentleman ever met a high school head or teacher who supports selection

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his case.

Damian Green: The answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) is: many. Very few head teachers have told me that they want the wholesale disruption of Kent schools; they all know that is what would happen if he had his way. He says that the problem is that the barrier to trigger the ballot was set too high. I have to say, first, that that is a touch pathetic and, secondly, it was not a near miss; the tripping point was missed by milesby a quantum of six or seven. There is no enthusiasm for the change.
	I realise that the hon. Gentleman campaigned for change and would no doubt continue to do so, but he had no support from the vast mass of parents in Kent, so he should change tack and support different systems in different parts of the country. I observe what happens in my constituency, as no doubt he does in his. In my nearby constituency, schools work well together. Ashford grammar schools and high schools co-operate in a forum; they work together in an imaginative new cluster system. People do not care whether they are working with a high school or a grammar school and primary schools work with both. Educational standards, which need improving, can be improved. Overall, the system works well for the children from relatively poor backgrounds who can benefit from a highly academic education.

Frank Dobson: As I understand it, the national policy of the Conservatives, as enunciated by their new, old Etonian leader, is not to have selection by ability for secondary schools. We can understand that a self-proclaimed Conservative wants to maintain the status quo in Kentthat is what Conservatives dobut what is the logic of saying that they are against selection by ability everywhere in the country except where there are grammar schools already? It is postcode selection.

Damian Green: The logic was very well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was here to listen to his speech. As I said, I am speaking in favour of non-disruption and local choice. The first seems an extremely sensible educational point. The second seems an extremely good Conservative principle. Indeed, the Government whom he sporadically supports occasionally say that they support that principle, too. They say that they are in favour of local choice. I invite the Government to put their words into practice and support local choice, as I think that they will in opposing new clause 39. I will happily go into the Division Lobby with them to do that.

David Chaytor: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident that the people of Kent would support the status quo and that the merits of the system in Kent are so self-evident, why is he frightened of putting the matter to a ballot under new clause 39?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is not listening to what I am saying. I am not frightened of that, but I saw what happened after the ballots were introduced under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. There were years of disruption in Kent schools. People were not spending enough time making the schools better. They were spending too much of their time preparing themselves for a political campaign. I do not want to go through that again and I do not want the schools to go through that again.
	Every parentevery familyshould have choice, not just the well-off. One of the more sensible things that the Government have said in recent years was in their response to the Education and Skills Committee's report on secondary schools admissions in November 2004:
	The Government wants all secondary schools to play to their strengths and provide a flexible curriculum able to meet the needs of individual pupils. Selection by aptitude allows a small number of pupils with particular gifts and talents to benefit from particular curriculum strengths.
	I agree with all of that. Where I part company from the Government is that I regard all-round academic excellence as an aptitude, but I know that, for historic reasons, they cannot adopt that view. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his consistency. He disapproves of any kind of differentiation. He wants all secondary schools to be the same and he is completely consistent in that.
	I think that the Government were right in that response and they are right to reject new clause 39. I do not want to impose the system that obtains in Kent on other areas of the country if they do not want it and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should want to impose his system on my constituents and the schools in my constituency. I believe in local choice, and I demand that local choice for parents in my locality. They have said clearly that they admire the work done in all the schools in Ashford. They want to keep the current system and they would hate political interference driven by an out-of-date levelling down ideology to get in the way of good schools. I urge the House to reject new clause 39.

Sally Keeble: I will keep my comments brief because I know that a large number of other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I am opposed to the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Brent, East proposes an admissions policy that is based on a mistrust of head teachers. That seems fundamentally flawed. We rely on the ability and leadership provided by head teachers for the quality of what happens in schools, so it would be wrong to have an admissions policy that assumed that they were trying to cheat. I also think that, when we are trying to encourage schools to build more links with their communities, it would send mixed messages to say that they can have links at all times, except where anything to do with admissions is concerned, when an exclusion zone applies. The way in which that was presented was completely false. The proposals made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton were clearly a retrograde step and would undo the progress that had been achieved by Labour Members.
	In opposing those new clauses, I ask MinistersI have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools about this matterto give me some assurances about the position on admissions in relation to a particular group of pupils: those who have been excluded from school. They seem to have been missed out of the present debate, although there are supposed to be some provisions in the Bill for them.
	A school community can be shaped by not only admissions, but exclusions. All of us who know of schools that have opted out over the years, or entered into different management arrangements, have often seen that accompanied by large-scale exclusions. When I was a council leader in London, a school became a city technology college under the then Conservative Government. Its establishment as a CTC was accompanied by shedloads of pupils being excluded, all of whom ended up at a neighbouring community school. The situation had a profound impact on the community school's ability to cope and its performance. Although we have an admissions code, I am worried that it is not clear that the priorities will also be applied to children who are excluded. I do not want to end up with school communities shaped by not only admissions policies, but exclusion policiesin other words, selection by behaviour, not ability.
	I am especially worried because we must consider the real ethnic impact of exclusions. Segregation in schools has been profoundly damaging. Information from the Office for National Statistics shows that permanent exclusion rates are highest for children of Traveller Irish heritage, with a rate of 66 children in every 10,000. The rate for children of mixed ethnic origin is 25 in every 10,000, which is much lower. The exclusion rate for pupils of mixed ethnic origin and black pupils is similar, and it is about twice the rate for white pupils. The figures are similar for fixed-term exclusions. We also know that the peak point for exclusions is for boys aged 13 and 14. Unless we are sure that those children can get back into schools and that there is a code on, and sensible arrangements for, their readmission to schools, we will run the risk of finding that there is a drift of difficult children from schools that abide by the consensus to those that decide for one reason or another to be outside it.

Sadiq Khan: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as me to ensure that the effect ofclause 94, which deals with reintegration interviews, and clause 95, which sets out the duty in relation to excluded pupils, is monitored in the context of race and social deprivation?

Sally Keeble: I completely agree. I tabled a couple of amendments on the matter, but they are not being debated, so I am having to tailor my remarks to the amendments in the group; otherwise I might be ruled out of order. All the issues that my hon. Friend raises are extremely important.
	I hope that the Minister will give us assurances on the points that I have raised. I understand that it will not be possible to deal with them all under the framework of the Bill, but given the big concessions that the Government have made on admissions to ensure that we have a cross-section of the community accessing local schools in a proper and fair manner, we do not want skewing to occur owing to the impact of exclusions and what happens with the readmission of excluded children.

Robert Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her speech and on bringing a different perspective to the debate.
	I wish to speak against new clause 39, which is a clumsy and, some would say, spiteful attempt to destroy the remaining 160-odd grammar schools throughout the country. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is an intelligent and decent individual. He is also my colleague on the Education and Skills Committee, and he often speaks with insight and creativity on education matters[Hon. Members: More!] I am building him up. However, the hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be sucked into the Deputy Prime Minister's style of class warfare. Just because the hon. Gentleman dislikes grammar schools and selection does not mean that those in existence are wrong in principle.
	There are two wonderful grammar schools in my constituency which provide excellence in education that is rarely matched anywhere else.

David Chaytor: Why cannot more children attend those schools?

Robert Wilson: I am about to go into that, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
	Reading school for boys and Kendrick school for girls offer local children a fantastic start in life. They come from a range of backgrounds. Many are bright and come from poorer or disadvantaged backgrounds. They often apply to the grammar schools because schools elsewhere in the borough are appalling.

David Chaytor: Is it not the case that 70 per cent. of the intake of the wholly selective schools in Reading comes from outside Reading? How can the hon. Gentleman say that they give opportunities to local children? They are kept out of those selective schools because of their admissions policy.

Robert Wilson: That is not true. The figure of 70 per cent. is not correct; it is much lower than that.
	As I said, many of the other local schools are not of sufficient quality that parents wish to choose them, although there have been improvements. The good work at Highdown school means that it is catching up fast.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Wilson: Can it wait? The hon. Lady's intervention yesterday was hardly useful.
	Merely a year ago, the local education authority in Reading was judged by Ofsted to be only satisfactory, and that was by a whisker. Some 40 per cent. of pupils in Reading are exported to South Oxfordshire and Woking authorities. Why? Because the performance of local schools, particularly at secondary level, has been poor historically. The fact that we float slightly above the bottom of the league tables is thanks to the performance of the grammar schools.
	Parents in my constituency will be angry that an MP from Bury has decided that they should not be able to exercise a choice that, in the case of Reading school, has been open to them for hundreds of years. That is unacceptable.

David Chaytor: rose

Anne Snelgrove: rose

Robert Wilson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Chaytor: Is not the hon. Gentleman making my case for me? My argument is that selection leads to greater division and segregation. He is proving my case.

Robert Wilson: I will deal with that in a second.

John Hayes: Is my hon. Friend familiar with the work on the subject by Lord Adonis, the Prime Minister's special adviser on education? He argues in his book A Class Act: Myth of Britain's Classless Society that the abolition of grammar schools has had the effect that my hon. Friend describes. He disagrees with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) about social mobility and makes the case that selective schools aid social mobility, a view supported by the work of the London School of Economics last year, which essentially concluded the same thing.

Robert Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. However, I do not want to dwell on the internal battles within the Labour party.

Damian Green: As, I think, the only pupil from Reading school in the Chamber[Hon. Members: We rest our case.] Very good. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Bury, North that, whatever he thinks about the intellectual attainments of individual pupils, when the admissions policy of local education authorities were more rigid and 100 per cent. of pupils who went to Reading school came from within a narrowly defined boundary of a growing townhe will know that that is often a difficultythe school was extremely socially mixed. Many of my school friends came from deprived backgrounds, and went on to successful university careers and careers following that, precisely because they went to a very good academic grammar school. It was a force for social mobility in the town.

Robert Wilson: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that our debate is time-limited. If hon. Members are to take interventions, will those making them be brief?

Robert Wilson: The idea that a ballot of parents provides legitimacy is a fig leaf for the views of the hon. Member for Bury, North. I dare say he would say that it is democracy in action, but we have seen how that form of unpleasant democracy worked with ballots for grant-maintained schools. At a school in my constituency where a ballot took place, there was a disgraceful local campaign of intimidation and bullying. The school community took a long time to recover, and I dare say that such events were repeated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green).
	It is not right to politicise schools in that way. May I tell the hon. Member for Bury, North that the current arrangements demonstrate that there is no appetite to destroy the few remaining grammar schools, including two in my constituency? He would do much better to concentrate on the fact that 1 million children have been failed by schools for which his party is responsible.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Wilson: I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling.

Anne Snelgrove: I shall be brief. The hon. Gentleman was silent in Committee, so it is interesting to hear his views today. He maligned successful schools in Reading local education authority, but having served as vice-chair of Berkshire county council education committee at the time, I can attest that there was not a malicious campaign against grant-maintained schools. Parents rightly debated the issue, as did politicians of all colours. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman denigrated Reading LEA, as it has made great strides in improving the schools in the area.

Robert Wilson: I am afraid that, as she did yesterday, the hon. Lady shows her ignorance of both the historical and current situation in Reading. I certainly have not denigrated any schools that have achieved a reasonable performance.
	I have tabled amendment No. 110 to clause 48. According to the regulatory impact assessment,clause 48 creates
	greater flexibility and encourages collaboration by permitting schools, or groups of schools working together, to adopt admission arrangements that band applicants.
	There are three kinds of banding: it can apply to a single school, across the local area, or it can represent a national ability range. The previous attempt to encourage banding failed, because it was a lengthy process and there were applications from only 15 schools, two of which were turned down. I hope that the present attempt fails. I have two main objections to banding. First, it derives from an ideology that dictates that the quality of a school can only be determined by planning its intake. People who push that philosophy do not believe that the success of a school is determined by ethos, quality of teaching or leadership. Banding is a substitute for making genuine improvements to a school. It attempts to fiddle the figures, rather than address the problems inherent to a school or to a group of schools.

Nadine Dorries: Is my hon. Friend aware that city academies use a banding system for admission? They take a percentage of children with special needs and a percentage of children of certain ability. They argue that as they have accepted a certain percentage of children with special needs they will not take any more. As a result, community schools in the neighbourhood are affected. In Southwark, for example, where the City of London academy is located, 62.2 per cent. of pupils at neighbouring schools are children with special needs.  [ Interruption. ] There is a table that shows how many schools are affectedit is not just one or two. Many community schools in the area have far more children

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) may wish to reply.

Robert Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am sure that the Minister will respond later.
	Secondly, banding ultimately takes children away from their local school. They are bussed to schools in an extensive area for the sake of social engineering that diminishes parental choice. I do not understand how that fits with the LEA's responsibility under the Bill to champion parental choice. I am sure that parents will not support the measure, so perhaps the Minister can explain why he thinks they will do so. I have serious concerns about whether banding will work effectively. The new clause, the Bill, and the code of admissions do not give the number of bands for good or best practice. Will there be a 10, five or three-band system? Will all those systems be used, and will the number of bands differ from school to school? Who decides the banding category? Is it the governors, the LEA or another authority?
	The proposal has not been properly thought through. I instinctively oppose anything that smacks of social engineering: clause 48 is an unnecessary interference in local administration of schools, so it should be removed. I hope that the Conservative spokesmen will press the matter to a vote.

Paul Farrelly: I, too, shall speak to the new clauses moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) which also bear my name, and particularly new clause 39. I want to contribute also from personal experience, as someone who was educated equally at a grammar school and a comprehensive school. I was part of the generation that went through the changes implemented by the then Labour Secretary of State, Shirley Williams, and my school, Wolstanton county grammar school, became the Marshlands comprehensive school in my fourth year, when I was 15.
	I speak, too, as someone representing a constituency where selection remains very much part of the landscape. In 1997, as part of my rite of passage, I contested Chesham and Amersham, that favourable ground for Labour in Buckinghamshire, so I am familiar with a broad range of opinion about the academic selection still practised in that county.
	Before I begin my remarks, I crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take this opportunity almost a decade after that election to pay tribute to the late Keith Kingswood. Keith was the secretary of the Chesham and Amersham constituency Labour party, a tough calling in an area where for many people even new Labour conjured up the same fears as old Vikings. Keith, a very erudite and educated man, was above all a fervent opponent of academic selection all his life and a leading light in the Campaign for State Education, CASE.
	Sadly, during that election, Keith died and was never able to see a new Labour Government. Such was his dedication that he flew over to New York to see his son to register a postal vote, of all things. During that visit, he contracted a mystery virus and never recovered. In 1997, while many people were still partying to the strains of Things can only get betterand they haveon election night we went quietly to bed and, with his family and widow Janet, laid Keith to rest at his funeral the next day.
	There is no better tribute to Keith's lifelong efforts than the work done by Comprehensive Future, by the Socialist Education Association, of which I am a vice-chair, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, and by dedicated educationists like Fiona Millar, in drafting and tabling the new clauses.
	Of course, we would all like the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools to support the new clause or even allow a free vote. After comments I have heard from many Labour Back-Bench colleagues, Ministers and indeed some of the Whips, I have no doubt that if there were a free vote, new clause 39 would be passed today.
	I passed my 11-plus. I was also the only person in my year who did so and was refused entry at a grammar schoolthe Catholic grammar school of choicebecause of a bad reference about my behaviour. The Whips' reach is long and I am still getting bad references now. So I went to Wolstanton, which is a non-denominational school, where I am now a governor, and in hindsight that did me the world of good, because I do not think I was made for the Christian Brothers' discipline.
	I was distraught at the time, however, and so were lots of children who, for whatever reason, failedin inverted commas. That was the language. There were good friends of mine who passed but went to the secondary modern round the corner, the Blessed Thomas Maxwell, either because other mates were going or because grammar schools were seen as snobby and for them, not for us. And then there were the kidsand parentswho at that age did not know, did not care and did not have a clue. That was a disgraceful and divisive way to run an education systemto mark out large numbers of children as failures, based on an arbitrary test on an arbitrary day at an arbitrary age.

Brian Binley: As one of those failures who did not pass the 11-plus but was a very good boy indeed, I resent your remarks that people who did not get to a grammar school were failures

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the terms of address. Those certainly were not my remarks.

Brian Binley: Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take exception to those remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the secondary modern schools in many parts of the country gave a very good education and set young people on a solid path to a good future?

Paul Farrelly: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ascent. He speaks eloquently, but perhaps he should listen more carefully. When I used the word failure, I deliberately said in inverted commas. That was the language. It should never again be the reality.
	Selection by so-called academic ability through such a test is a throwback to the days when education was in effect a privilege, not a right. When I was young, the system acted at each stage as a sieve so that a small minority could go to university. At each stage11-plus, CSE, O-level and A-levelthose who did not make the grade were out: they had failed. That was the language. Thank heaven that, for most children, those days have gone.
	There was no proper vocational education at the local secondary modern. My two brothers went there and left without many qualifications or any preparation for working life whatsoever. In the 1980s, one of them went through a succession of so-called youth training schemes, stacking shelves, only to be let go days before his six months were up, when the company was supposed to offer a permanent job. What a great start to life that was.
	I was fortunate enough to start at a grammar school. However, there were hierarchies among the grammars. There was a snobbery attached to the grant-maintained schools, all of which locally opted out to become private schools in the mid-1970s. Those hierarchies and snobberies explain why many of us are suspicious about the Bill, which creates yet another new class of schoolstrust schools.
	As I said, my grammar school went comprehensive. That was a painful process because it involved the merger of two schoolsa grammar and a secondary modernbut once the pain was over I do not remember Marshlands high school being anything but the better for being a comprehensive. It was far more balancedand we got girls for the first time, so perhaps I was biased. There was certainly no attachment to the old grammar school, the 11-plus and the all the disgraceful division associated with it, and since then there has been no call from any political party to go back to that system. However, the way in which it was done left an echo of selection that remains divisive to this day.
	That time of reorganisation is full of great ironies. It is often said that the Secretary of State who turned more grammars into comprehensives was none other than Margaret Thatcher. And the Secretary of State who presided over the biggest expansion of private education, at least in my area, was a Labour Secretary of State who is now a Liberal Democrat and whose mother, coincidentally, comes from Newcastle-under-Lyme.
	It was wrong then, and it is wrong now, that Labour has not followed through by fully addressing academic selection at such a young age. New clause 39 would address that historic anomaly, but not by impositionit would allow for a ballot of parents of pupils and primary schools feeding grammar schools.

Graham Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the highest levels of independent education often occur in the areas that have comprehensive schools, whereas the lowest levels often occur in areas such as mine, which have extremely high-performing selective education?

Paul Farrelly: When I was at my comprehensive in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I very much enjoyed going out to the ice rink at Altrincham. I can speak only for my area, where the historical legacy of the way in which the system was changed led to the expansion of private education, not the existence de facto of comprehensive schools.
	I want to turn to the years before 1997 when I was campaigning in Chesham and Amersham in Buckinghamshire with my good friend Keith and other long-suffering Labour stalwarts such as my agent, Peter Ward. The area has some great secondary schoolshigh schools that are not grammars, such as Chesham high school. However, it would be wrong to say that as a result most parents to whom I spoke are happy with the selective systemquite the contrary. Many would welcome the opportunity of a change, or a proper debate about change, which new clause 39 would facilitate.
	None of us would be supporting the new clauses if we did not believe that comprehensive education levels up, not down. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North quoted the evidence, which has remained unchallenged by Conservative Members. But there is another factor that is often overlooked. Selective schools, grammar and private, take out of the state system many of the very parents who are most likely to agitate for and contribute to better standards for every child in every school in every community.
	I want to mention one another overlooked factor. In 2000, when, much to the horror of some of my former teachers, I became a governor of my old school, which is now Wolstanton high school, I was taken aback by its size. It had 1,200 pupils, compared with 600 when I was there. Whereas before it had teachers and form heads, it now had, like so many schools, senior management teams and lots of the bureaucracy involved with administering such a large establishment.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman paints a misty-eyedsome would say myopicview of the comprehensive ideal. Does he favour it in its original incarnationone sort of school catering for all abilities in one wayor does he support the Government's view of academies, specialist schools, trust schools and a diversity of provision, whereby different children go to different sorts of school, depending on where they live?

Paul Farrelly: I favour schools with mixed ability that level up, not down, for everybody. Again, I cite the evidence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred. The Opposition have not challenged it.
	Labour Members have rightly emphasised smaller class sizes. However, after so many school mergers, the implications of school sizes for teaching and attention to pupils and standards are often missing from the debate. I hope that that will receive attention in future.
	We want all schools to be good schools, not factories, inclusive and not divisive, and to level up, not down, for everyone. We want schools that improve life chances for everyone, not only a minority, and we want all parents to have a say. I therefore urge hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools, to support new clause 39.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), especially as he revealed his early days of skating on the ice rink in Altrincham. That is obviously where he gained his taste for skating on thin ice.
	I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends who have spoken, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), who obviously does an excellent job not only for his constituents, but for education. One of the most important aspects of his speech was a preparedness to talk about bad schools. One of the most damaging things in education is the number of people who find it convenient not to admit that bad schools exist. They tend to ignore them and they get away with it. My hon. Friend mentioned Reading local education authority's performance, with about 46 per cent. of children getting five or more good GCSEs. That is unacceptable. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) intervened on him, and I believe that 50 per cent. of children in her LEA obtain five or more good GCSEs. That is also unacceptable. Such levels of achievement should not be tolerated.

Anne Snelgrove: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardonI was discussing going to get a cup of tea, so I was not entirely paying attention, but I believe that he mentioned my local authority. We are doing several percentage points better than we were in 1997 when the Labour Government came to power.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady has fallen into the trap about which I was warning hon. Membersdefending abysmal performance that should not be tolerated.I am delighted if the performance is marginally better, but getting 50 per cent. of children through five A* to C grade GCSEs is simply unacceptable.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No, I have dealt with the point.
	I have a specific obligation in the debate because, as hon. Members who heard my contributions on Second Reading know, my constituency and the borough of Trafford have the best performing schools in England. The system there is wholly selective and it would be an act of vandalism and stupidity to disrupt and damage it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who also represents an area with selective education, made a point about the Liberal Democrats' contribution. I cannot resist picking up on that, especially given that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is again in her place, because my experience in Altrincham, like that of my hon. Friend in Kent, is that the Liberal Democrats support grammar schools and selective education. They know how popular they are with parents.

Sadiq Khan: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments and those of the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), why will he vote for the Bill, especially clause 36, which abolishes selection by ability and limits the ability of other areas to benefit from the fantastic schools that he mentioned?

Graham Brady: I am prepared to support the Bill because the current Government and the future Government thankfully agree on one issuethe excellent education that is offered in my constituency and elsewhere in the borough of Trafford should remain. The Government and the Opposition are joining together on thatnew clause 39 will be defeated. Good education in those areas can therefore continue.

Sadiq Khan: That is precisely the point. While the status quo remains for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, he is denying others that right. If he supports that ethos, how can he support clause 36 or the Bill?

Graham Brady: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks on Second Reading, he will see that I made some of these points then. There are of course other measures that I would like to see in the Bill or another education Bill. I have made that very clear.
	I was about to make a point about the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was concerned about whether the Liberal Democrat candidate in Ashford would be honest enough to communicate the position of the Liberal Democrats on these issues. Whether or not they do so, I would urge my hon. Friend to do as I intend to do, which is to take it upon myself to inform the local community of how the Liberal Democrats vote on the Bill today. It is essential that people understand where the Liberal Democrats stand on quality education, and I intend to ensure that they do.

Sarah Teather: When the hon. Gentleman makes that position clear, presumably he will also make it clear that new clause 39 would allow for a parental ballot. It would therefore allow grammar schools to exist if they were very popular in a particular area.

Graham Brady: I will, but I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady's opening remarks on this subjectbrief as they werein which she made it clear that she opposed selection and grammar schools. I will be happy to give way to her again if she wants to make it clear that she in fact supports grammar schools and selection; otherwise, I will rely on the remarks that she has already placed on the record.

Sarah Teather: We have always made it clear that this is a matter for local discretion, just as new clause 39 allows.

Graham Brady: Well, there we areas with everything else for the Liberal Democrats, this is a matter for local discretion.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has pointed out that we have had this debate many times before, both inside and outside the House of Commons. I know that his views are as sincerely held as mine. I believe that he is profoundly mistaken, and he believes that I am. That is the way in which debates ought to be conducted.

David Chaytor: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that his majority depends on the parents who send their children to Trafford grammar schools.

Graham Brady: Well, the hon. Gentleman may be right, but his majority in Bury, North might prove more elusive than mine at the next election. I would have much more faith in the arguments that he advancesespecially his argument for the maintenance of the balloting arrangement to mitigate the damage of his proposalsif he had put in his amendment a proposal that the ballots should be extended more widely to other communities. As I said in an earlier intervention, I might even have been tempted to vote for such a proposal.
	I have no doubt whatever that the situation in my constituency would be similar to that in Kent, where the few campaigners against the grammar schools could get nowhere near the 5 per cent. threshold necessary to trigger a ballot. However, if such a ballot were to take place in my constituency, I am confident that the majority in favour of preserving the highest performing education system in the country would be at least as great as it was when such a vote took place in Ripon, albeit with a different type of electorate.

David Chaytor: In that case, why is the hon. Gentleman so opposed to new clause 39? He should be supporting it, because it would give him the opportunity to prove once and for all that his pro-selection argument is supported by his constituents. Also, why is he not arguing for ballots in the other parts of Greater Manchester?

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do argue for precisely that, and not just in Greater Manchester. I advanced that case on Second Reading. I would be delighted if parents across the country were given the freedom to choose on this issue. He asks why I do not want to put this matter to the test in Trafford. He has already pointed out his own test, which is the test provided by the electorate. That is clearly why my majority has tripled in the past three general elections and why we have now regained control of Trafford borough council. Of course, if he were to advance the same cogent arguments that I do on this subject, he might still be gracing the House with his presence after the next general election, rather than merely until that time. I wish that he would come over to our side on this issue.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about opinion polling, but he was slightly selective in his choice of statistics. He referred to a YouGov poll, which apparently took place last year, but did not allude to the ICM poll that took place in March this yearmuch more recently in the context of the debate about this Billwhich showed 70 per cent. support for more grammar schools. That, however, is not really the point. The fundamental point is what works in raising standards in education. He did not explain in his opening remarks why the borough of Trafford gets more than 70 per cent. of children through five or more good GCSEs, whereas the borough of Bury, which he represents, gets only 58 per cent. through. I have been trying to get that explanation from him for months if not years, so I would be delighted to listen to what he has to say.

David Chaytor: If I did not explain that then, I shall explain it now. The borough of Trafford sucks in children from the whole of Greater Manchester, and the higher standards of Trafford are achieved at the expense of lower standards in Manchester, Salford, Wigan, Warrington and the county of Cheshire. It is simple.

Graham Brady: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he does not know my borough as well as I do. If he did, he would know that those who are sucked in, as he put it, by the high-quality schools available in the borough come in many cases from much more deprived areas, such as Wythenshawe on the Manchester side of the boundary. I am afraid that there is no cogency to the point that he makes.
	Similarly, the hon. Gentleman alluded to the education system and performance in Northern Ireland without, astonishingly, mentioning that Northern Ireland gets the best GCSE results in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is scandalous that the Government intend to proceed to abolish Northern Ireland's grammar schools, which, together with its high schools, achieve the best results in the whole country. He did not seek to apply his balloting regime there. Apparently, he is happy for Labour Ministersfrom a party that is not even represented in Northern Irelandto act over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, the massive of majority of whom, when there was consultation on the subject, supported keeping the system as it is.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the selective education system in Northern Ireland not only provides better results but better social mobility?

Graham Brady: I absolutely accept that it does, and that is also the case in other areas that retain selective education. Of course, in many areas where there are grammar schools, they are enormously popular, especially with some ethnic minority populations, who find them a way of raising their achievements and increasing their opportunities in life.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North talked about a consensus on this issue, and there is a sort of consensus developing [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that I am not part of it, and he may be right. It is a funny kind of consensus, however. The Government and the Opposition agree that existing grammar schools and selective areas should be left alone because they work so well. My hon. Friendthe Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb) also made it clear that the quality of education can be improved by teaching to a smaller section of the ability range, which is why setting and streaming works to raise standards in schools. Again, that is a point of consensus between Government and Opposition.
	In my view, that is also a reason why academic selection between schools works, as my hon. Friend generously acknowledged by paying tribute to Wellington high school in my constituency, which gets outstanding results. It is not the only high school that does so. Most high schools in Trafford, and all those in my constituency, are achieving fantastic results and could not be described in any sense as failing. They also perform particularly well in the value-added league tables. Altrincham college of arts, a high school in my constituency, is the best-performing school in the borough of Trafford in that regard. As I also pointed out to my hon. Friend, however, and as he accepted, the figures for valued-added performance also show that grammar schools get remarkably good results. That completely confounds the argument so often advanced that grammar schools do well simply because they admit bright children. They admit them, but they then raise standards of attainment even more than other schools would have done. That is why, on the value-added basis, 18 of the 21 best performing schools in the country for 11 to 14-year-olds are grammar schools.
	The high level of performance in selective education authorities is shown in Trafford and across the country in the value-added league tables. It is also shown in the figures that I provided on Second Reading about standards from high-performing LEAs at primary level being maintained into secondary education. The comparison that I mentioned then was between Trafford and the borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. Trafford starts off being second in the country at primary level and goes up to first place at secondary level; Richmond starts out first in the country at primary level, slipping down to 65th place at secondary level. The point is also borne out by the number of selective education authorities that are at the top of the performance tables, year in, year out.
	The first part of the consensus is to keep selective education where it exists because it works, and the second part is to maintain and increase selection within schools also because it works. Almost everyone believes that that is a way of raising educational standards within comprehensive schools. However, another issue should be dealt with. It relates to another part of the consensus, which appears to be that there should be no more selective education, even if it would work. As I made clear on Second Reading, I have no desire to impose a new system nationwide. All the arguments about the dangers of disrupting selective systems could be said to apply equally to comprehensive systems. It is generally a bad thing to march in from Whitehall and attempt to reorder and re-engineer the provision of local services by diktat. I would not support that in any way, but I hope that we will, in time, move to a more thoughtful and more open-minded consensusone built only on what works and what parents want for their children. In doing so, we will certainly defeat new clause 39, but I also hope that we will endorse a much more diverse provision of education, which should include some academically selective schools, especially in our cities.

Martin Linton: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 112, but I do not advise hon. Members to reach for the amendment paper to see what it says because it is gobbledegook. What is does, however, is to close an unintended loophole in the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, under which an adjudicator could increase the level of selection at a partially selective school back up to the 1998 level. Thus, if a school selected 50 per cent. of its pupils in 1998 and has since been instructed by the adjudicator to decrease it to 25 per cent., it would be open to the adjudicator to increase it back up to 50 per cent.
	If anyone thinks that that is not what Parliament intended, I would agree, but Parliament only passes the law and the judges decide what it means. In this case, Mr. Justice Collins decided in the High Court a couple of years ago that the true meaning of section 100 of the 1998 Act was not that there could be no increase in selection, which is what we thought that it meant, but that there could be no increase above the level that obtained in 1998. A group of parents in my borough asked the adjudicator to increase selection at two partially selective schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) from 25 to 50 per cent.
	I am glad to say that, on this occasion, the adjudicator did not accede to the request, but she stated in her determination of September 2004 thatit would be within her power to agree an increase to50 per cent. I put it to my hon. Friends that, if there were such an increase from 25 to 50 per cent. in a partially selective school, we could hardly view it as agreeing with our election promise to have no new selection. Indeed, we could hardly justify it by saying that it is not an increase in comparison with 1998.

Sadiq Khan: Is not one of the problems that that loophole allows the possibility of future sets of children and their parents being made miserable by the annual wait for year 6 results? If a school is allowed to increase from 25 to 50 per cent. those whom it selects by ability, the number of those who come in because of their siblings, proximity or special needs is reduced.

Martin Linton: I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who knows all too well that the effect of selection in the partially selective schools in his constituency has a very big effect on other parents of year 6 children in his constituency and, indeed, in mine.
	Significantly, the mistake was not made in the admissions code of practice, which does not use the 1998 level as its benchmark but says that selection cannot be raised if it has been continuous since that time. However, the code of practice was not mandatory. Unfortunately, the 1998 Act causes the problem. That Act was never intended to say what the judge says that it meant. I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when Mr. Justice Collins made his ruling, and I have a letter from his Under-SecretaryStephen Twigg, whom we all miss, I am surewho wrote:
	It was not widely expected that schools that had been compelled by the Adjudicator to reduce the level of partial selection would be able to raise it again. Nor was this our intent when we introduced this provision.
	The then Minister went on to say that
	we may want to amend the School Standards and Framework Act at some time in the future.
	The time has come; the opportunity is here.
	I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I understood that she would consider it in Committee. It has not yet been dealt with, so I have tabled an amendment that would deliver what the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 intended, what we meant when we said, No new selection, and what most of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends are expecting.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), both of whom were educated in my constituency, will understand when I say that, when the 1998 Act was passed, there was in my constituency one of the six lowest performing schools in the countrynot the one that they went toand its performance was worse than that of any school in Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds. Since that Act was passed, that school has dramatically improved its pass rate from 4 per cent. to more than 30 per cent., partly because the partially selective schools in the neighbouring constituency were forced to stop taking the most academically gifted children from our borough.
	The adjudicator forced those schools to reduce academic selection in successive steps from 50 to 33 to 30 and then to 25 per cent. The head teacher and the staff of that school, having rolled that heavy boulder up from the bottom of the hill to the top, are now on the verge of a bright new future, as an academy. I want to be able to assure them that that process will not be suddenly reversed by an adjudicator who can decide to increase the proportion of selective schools, with all the devastating consequences that that would have for the other schools in the borough.
	I wish to say a brief word about new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I am a great admirer of the work that he does with Comprehensive Futurea total supporterand I believe that it is important to keep hold of the fact that ballots in fully selective areas of the country and adjudicators in respect of areas with partially selective schools are the two means by which we can gradually reduce and then I hope, one day, eliminate the use of academic selection in secondary schools.
	I welcome the new cross-party consensusalthough it does not appear to have reached all Opposition Membersthe logical conclusion of which is that we must make ballots and the adjudicator system work. With my brief amendment, I am trying to ensure that the adjudicator system works in the way that we intended. My hon. Friend is trying to improve the ballots system, but I fear that putting the onus on supporters of grammar schools to call for referendums may make it easer for them to run Save our grammar schools and Vote no to abolition campaigns, and to have the upper hand in referendums. I am not convinced that reversing the current system and providing for ballots opposing abolition would advance the cause that my hon. Friend and I both support. For that reason I shall not vote for his new clause, but I should like the Minister to say what the Government intend to do about this loophole.

Brian Binley: I realise that time is short, so I shall be brief, but I cannot resist commenting on the fact that the only member of the present Cabinet who went to a secondary modern school is the Deputy Prime Minister. I wonder whether Labour Members might tell me whether he and, indeed, I are good examples of that system. They might like to come up to me in the bar and let me know privately.
	I can reassure the Secretary of State and his Ministers that my speech will be non-contentious, and that mine is a simple, innocuous, highly non-political, immensely practical and, I hope, entirely helpful new clause. It provides:
	Any child of staff currently serving at a maintained school shall be eligible for preferential admission at the discretion of the school governors.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will jump to his feet and say immediately that he wants the new clause to be included in the Bill. If he does, I will of course sit down.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Binley: I see that the Secretary of State is not moving all that quickly, so I will.

Anne Snelgrove: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. The draft code for admissions specifically bans what he is proposing.

Brian Binley: I am delighted that that point has been made, because I expected it and am therefore able to reject it.
	The Bill states that there can be equal preference for admission, but that is not strictly true, and I can cite a number of cases in which it has proved not to be true. A school can include in its admissions policy the provision that, if it is oversubscribed, it will have to choose from an excess of applicants. It can give preference to those living in certain areas, and thus less preference to those outside those areas; it can give preference to children with a medical need, and thus less preference to those without such need; and it can give preference to children with siblings already at the school. So it is not quite right to say that equal preference should be pursued.
	It would be perfectly possible, within that framework, for school governors to give preference to the admission of children of staff, and that is what my new clause seeks to allow. It seeks to give preference to teachers with one or two children whom they might wish to go to the school in which they teach. There is good reason for that proposal. We argue, again and again, that we want ladies, in particular, who have had children and who have been teachers to return to teaching.

Ian Stewart: Who, other than ladies, can have children?

Brian Binley: I reject that sedentary observation. I shall ignore it, and continue my remarks to the Secretary of State.
	There are ladies whom we want to attract back to the profession. I believe that the new clause would give ladies a major boost, and would help to attract them back to teaching when their families are growing up. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the new clause. I recognise that it is not the most vital part of this debate, but it would help a number of teachers returning to the profession, and it could well help in those areas where we particularly need to attract experienced teachers.

Jim Knight: We have had a lively debate on school admissions. The Bill creates a more equitable and transparent admissions process for parents and children. Labour Members have always been opposed to any extension of selection by academic ability, and the Bill reaffirms that stance. I am delighted that we have now won the argument, with the Opposition today agreeing that, far from having a grammar school in every town, there should be no new selection. That is a great victory for progressive politics. Perhaps thehon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will have to inform one or two of his Back-Bench colleagues about that policy; they did not seem to be that informed about it during the debate. Nevertheless, we welcome it.
	It will be unlawful for any school to introduce selection by ability to its admission arrangements, or, if it already selects part of its intake by ability, to increase its level of selection. I shall address in a little while the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) made about that issue.
	Schools that set their own admissions arrangements need to know what is and is not acceptable, so that parents are treated fairly. Clause 37 sets those limits by creating a new, stronger schools admissions code with which admissions authorities must act in accordance. The skeleton code that was issued to Members in Committee and circulated among the educational community has been widely welcomed. Opposition Members seek to undermine the new, stronger code through amendments Nos. 103 and 104, and I strongly urge the House to oppose them.
	We will ban interviews as part of the school admissions process. They have long been perceived by many to be an unfair and subjective means of deciding which applicants should be offered school places, and the provision banning them has been widely welcomed.
	Members in all parts of the House asked for more to be done to give priority for admission to looked-after children. I am delighted that in Committee, clauses 43 to 47 were inserted to give local authorities powers to direct the admission of children in public care to appropriate schools, in order to ensure that that most vulnerable group is not disadvantaged in the admissions process. Of course, we have considered how schools and local authorities can work together to ensure that admissions processes work for parents, take account of local circumstances and do not restrict fair access. We believe that we have provided helpful clarification, and that the Bill's provisions will ensure a fairer admissions process.
	New clauses 24 and 46 and amendment No. 95 illustrate the concern, shared by Members in all parts of the House, that some admissions authorities might not administer their arrangements fairly. The proposal is to give local authorities or some other, more independent body responsibility for allocating places to all maintained schools, by considering applications against published admissions criteria.
	I fully appreciate Members' motives in proposing the new clauses and amendment, but we are already taking the right steps to create a fairer admissions system. We now have a single-form application via the local authority, and we have created a robust system of checks and balances. Legislation and the schools admissions code establish parameters within which admissions arrangements must be set and operated. The schools adjudicator and the Secretary of State both have a role to play in dealing with complaints and objections. Under the current system, individual admissions authorities are accountable for decisions to permit or refuse admission to their schools. We do not want to change that, particularly because they, as individual admissions authorities, might be better placed to consider applications against their own admission arrangementsespecially where they relate to faith criteria or require an aptitude assessment.
	As I said in Committee, there is nothing to prevent schools and local authorities from agreeing, through their admissions forum, to take such an approach if their admissions arrangements lend them to it. Indeed, I am interested to know whether any areas are keen to pilot that approach, so that we can learn from it. I hope that Members will accept that as a sign that we are relatively relaxed about that approach, and that we do not feel the need to include such a statutory requirement in the Bill.

Sarah Teather: When we discussed this issue in Committee, I pointed out that there was no reason why faith criteria could not be taken into account. A letter from a priest could be appended to an application or a tick box could be added to the form to say what criteria were required. We welcome the Minister's comments about pilots, but will he actively encourage them or is he simply trying to prevent us from voting against the Bill?

Jim Knight: If there are admissions forums that want to pursue the hon. Lady's first point, my officials would be interested. It would have to be with the agreement of the members of the forum. For example, the faith communities would want to be happy with it and, at the moment, some are cautious. They are certainly cautious about who is best placed to make judgments about faith criteria

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend will know that new clause 24 is very similar to new clause 46, which I tabled, and I welcome the assurances given. Can he give us some idea of the timescale for the process of working towards those pilot schemes?

Jim Knight: I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite commitment on timescale. We have to allow time for the new admissions forums to be set up in their new form. In many cases, they will be significantly enlarged, and they need to identify the core members and elect the chair. We need some time for the arrangements to bed in before we have any idea about an accurate timetable. I fear that I might mislead my hon. Friend were I to give him anything concrete.

Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend raises the interesting and practical idea of pilot schemes. Would he consider piloting trust schools until they are proven to raise standards as the Government hope they will?

Jim Knight: Foundation schools, including those with trusts, are already proven. They have effectively been piloted already, and we had that debate last night, as I recall.
	I turn to the amendments on selection, as I imagine that that is why most hon. Members are present for this debate. The Government do not support the extension of selection by ability. I do not like selection. That has been our stance since 1997 and clause 36 reaffirms our stance that selection by academic ability cannot lawfully be introduced. But the Bill is not about imposing our view on structures centrally. It is an enabling Bill, and we want to encourage schools of all kinds to work together to benefit all pupils.
	Clause 48 on pupil banding is an example of how we are enabling schools to adopt such arrangements, which will widen access and provide an intake that is more representative of the range of ability of all applicants. Banding is not about selection. In fact, children cannot pass or fail a banding test. What happens is that children are allocated to ability bands and places are allocated from each of those in a non-selective way to produce a comprehensive intake. Although some banding schools run tests to assess ability and allocate to bands, it is not absolutely necessary to run separate tests for that. In Lewisham, where all schools band, the results of QCA year 5 SATS tests are used to allocate children to appropriate bands, so no additional testing is required. We will advocate the use of that means of assessing ability in the code.
	Amendment No. 110 seeks to prevent the introduction of banding by removing clause 48. I believe that pupil banding arrangements have a key role in reducing social segregation in an area. The new flexibilities on banding are important because they will allow schools situated in areas of traditional high academic attainment to send out a positive message that they are also there to serve less able pupils who might not gain entry if the school banded simply to admit local residents. That, coupled with our reforms of pupil transport, will increase opportunities for less affluent children, and I encourage anyone who wants to see a more equitable admissions system to support clause 48 and oppose amendment No. 110.
	Amendments Nos. 119 to 122 would go further and remove all selection by ability, including banding. New clause 39 would discontinue all selection except for banding purposes from all schools, unless local parents have voted in favour of its retention.
	In 1997, the Government made a commitment to leave it to parents and governors to decide the future of their grammar schools. The spirit of this Bill honours that commitment, as it does not impose any structure on any school. Grammar school governing bodies can bring forward proposals to remove selective arrangements, and the appropriate mechanisms are already in place to enable parents to challenge the continuation of selection in their local schools.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend the Minister deal with the point about the readmission of excluded pupils?

Jim Knight: I have every intention of doing so, but I felt that many colleagues wanted to hear what I had to say about grammar schools.
	As we have heard, parents have organised a number of petitions about grammar schools, but only one has gathered sufficient support to prompt a ballot. I always listen to the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) with great care, as he has great knowledge and wisdom and adopts an instinctively progressive point of view. However, the evidence suggests that it would be neither productive nor cost effective for the Government to organise ballots across the country, given that there has been so little call for them so far.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) admitted that his amendment No. 112 read like gobbledegook, but it would prevent schools with partially selective admissions arrangements from increasing the proportion of children selected. In addition, if the schools adjudicator has upheld an objection and reduced a school's level of selection, the amendment would prevent that school from reinstating its original level of selection later.
	As I said, I appreciate that it is still possible for the admissions authority to restore the proportion of intake that is selected, even though we have moved to make sure that the decision of the schools adjudicator will stick for two years. However, the loophole uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea goes against the Government's commitment to no new selectiona commitment now shared by the Oppositionand I shall look at ways to bring forward an amendment in another place to close it.
	I turn now to the arrangements for admissions to academies, about which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is especially concerned. I recognise that there are concerns that academies should be subject to the same admission rules that apply to maintained schools. New clause 47 highlights that concern by seeking to require academies to consult on their arrangements and take part in a co-ordinated admissions process, and it would also require objections about those arrangements to be made to the schools adjudicator. However, the Secretary of State already places those conditions on academies through their funding agreements. Moreover, he, rather than the adjudicator, determines objections to their admissions arrangements. That means that we already have the power that my hon. Friend is looking for, although it is expressed in a different way.
	The funding agreement goes further, requiring academies to comply with admissions legislation and to have regard to the school admissions code of practice. Once clause 37 is enacted, academies will also have to act in accordance with the new schools admissions code. I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
	I want to allow the hon. Member for Brent, East to wind up the debate, and I apologise that there is not enough time for me to tackle all the amendments. However, I think that we dealt in Committee with the arguments in respect of the ones that remain, and I urge that they be withdrawn.
	In conclusion, this Bill addresses the needs of parents and children, while at the same time setting a sensible framework in which school admission authorities must operate. It allows a degree of flexibility to take account of local circumstances, but it also provides clear parameters.
	We want an admissions process that allows parents to choose schools, rather than schools choosing parents. Ruling out admissions interviews, strengthening the status of the admissions code and giving forums greater responsibilities and powers will all help to achieve that aim.

Sarah Teather: I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition that distortion of admissions policy occurs on the ground, unlike Conservative Front-Bench Members who were unwilling to accept that fact.
	I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that he will look at pilots, but I would have had more confidence in his commitment to do so if he had drafted a permissive clause or enabling regulations, such as those on banding or transport, so that the pilots can go ahead. My fear is that under pressure, perhaps from faith schools, the proposal will be kicked into the long grass. It is a point of principle for the Liberal Democrats. We are not willing to support greater freedom for schools to control their admissions without extra safeguards.
	Despite the Minister's assurances, I shall have to test the opinion of the House on the new clause. We want the provision to be included. I hope that, perhaps in the other place, the Government will consider drafting enabling regulations or a permissive clause so that safeguards can be included in the Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 443.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than five hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [23 May].

New Clause 39
	  
	Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot

'(1) 'The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient which may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act, for the purposes of giving full effect to the principle set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that no admission arrangements for any school providing secondary education may, following the commencement of a school year on or after 1st August 2010, continue to make provision for the selection of pupils by ability or aptitude other than under section 101 of SSFA 1998 (permitted selection: pupil banding) unless the continuation of such selection has been approved in a ballot of parents of pupils attending primary schools from which such pupils may by choice of their parents transfer.'.  [Mr. Chaytor.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 115, Noes 415.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 37
	  
	Code for School Admissions

Amendment proposed: No. 104, in page 26, leave out line 40. [Mr. Gibb.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 375.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 41
	  
	Restrictions on alteration of admission arrangements

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 30, line 48, after 'any' insert 'provisions of'.
	No. 49, in page 30, line 48, at end insert
	'(1A) In this section, the protected provisions in relation to any admission arrangements, means provisions corresponding to those revised in accordance with section 90(8) or regulations under subsection (5) (as so revised).'.
	No. 50, in page 31, line 2, leave out
	'the effect of the revision'
	and insert 'the protected provisions'.
	No. 51, in page 31, line 5, after 'revision' insert
	'in accordance with section 90(8)'.
	No. 52, in page 31, leave out line 7 and insert 'protected provisions'.
	No. 53, in page 31, line 10, leave out
	'the effect of the revision'
	and insert 'the protected provisions'.
	No. 54, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'that effect' and insert 'those provisions'.
	No. 55, in page 31, line 22, leave out from 'the' to end of line and insert 'protected provisions.'. [Phil Hope.]

Clause 1
	  
	Duties in relation to high standards and the fulfilment of potential

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 1, line 10, after 'standards' insert
	'(aa) in the case of a local education authority in England, ensuring fair access to educational opportunity,'.  [Phil Hope.]

Clause 53
	  
	School requiring significant improvement

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 41, line 27, leave out subsection (2).  [Phil Hope.]

Clause 54
	  
	School requiring special measures

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 41, line 40, leave out subsection (2).  [Phil Hope.]

Clause 69
	  
	LEAs in England: provision of travel arrangements etc for children

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 54, line 3, leave out from 'child' to end of line 8 and insert 'if
	(a) no travel arrangements relating to travel in either direction between his home and the relevant educational establishment in relation to him, or in both directions, are provided free of charge in relation to him by any person who is not the authority, or
	(b) such travel arrangements are provided free of charge in relation to him by any person who is not the authority but those arrangements, taken together with any other such travel arrangements which are so provided, do not provide suitable home to school travel arrangements for the purpose of facilitating his attendance at the relevant educational establishment in relation to him.'. [Phil Hope.]

Clause 74
	  
	Amendment of section 444 of EA 1996

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 58, line 33, leave out 'Subsection (3B) applies' and insert
	'Subsections (3B) and (3D) apply'.
	No. 25, in page 58, line 33, leave out from 'England' to end of line 34.
	No. 26, in page 58, line 36, leave out from 'proves' to 'the' in line 1 on page 59 and insert 'that
	(a) '.
	No. 27, in page 59, line 10, at end insert
	'(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B)
	(a) the reference to travel arrangements in paragraph (a) has the same meaning as in section 508B, and
	(b) the reference to travel arrangements in paragraph (b) has the same meaning as in paragraph 3 of Schedule 35C.'.
	No. 28, in page 59, line 11, leave out from beginning to second 'is' in line 16 and insert
	'(3D) Where the school is an independent school which is not a qualifying school, the child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school if the parent proves
	(a) that the school'.
	No. 29, in page 59, line 23, at end insert
	'( ) For the purposes of subsection (3D), qualifying school has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Schedule 35B (meaning of eligible child for the purposes of section 508B).'.
	No. 30, in page 59, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 31, in page 59, line 33, at end insert
	'( ) In subsection (5) for subsection (4) substitute subsections (3D) and (4).'.
	No. 32, in page 59, line 34, leave out 'subsections (5) and (6)' and insert 'subsection (6)'.  [Phil Hope.]

Clause 150
	  
	Power of Chief Inspector to investigate complaints by parents about schools

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 102, line 2, leave out '8' and insert '8(2)'.
	No. 66, in page 104, leave out lines 8 to 11. [Phil Hope.]

Clause 163
	  
	Functions to be exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 114, line 13, at end insert
	'section 157 (time limits relating to statements of special educational needs);'.  [Phil Hope.]

Clause 171
	  
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 116, line 26, at end insert
	'section 100 (failure to secure school attendance), except subsection (8);'.
	No. 69, in page 117, line 2, at end insert
	'section (Offences relating to independent schools) (offences relating to independent schools);'.  [Phil Hope.]

Schedule 4
	  
	Disposals and changes of use of land

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 175, line 26, leave out from '(1)' to end of line and insert '
	( ) after foundation special school insert in Wales, and
	( ) omit paragraph (c).'.
	No. 34, in page 175, line 34, after 'Wales,' insert
	'( ) in paragraph (a) omit the words from or acquired to the end,'.
	No. 35, in page 176, line 11, leave out from '(1)' to end of line and insert '
	( ) after foundation special school insert in Wales,
	( ) in paragraph (a) omit the words from or acquired to the end,
	( ) omit paragraph (d), and
	( ) in paragraph (f) omit (d) or.'.
	No. 36, in page 176, line 13, at end insert
	'( ) In sub-paragraph (8) omit (d),.'. [Phil Hope.]

Schedule 7
	  
	Amendments relating to schools causing concern

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 194, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert
	'(4) Omit subsection (7).'.
	No. 77, in page 196, line 10, at end insert
	'Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21)
	17A (1) Schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (sixth forms requiring significant improvement) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 6(3)(a)(iii) for section 15(2) and (3) substitute section 15(2) to (4).
	(3) Omit paragraph 13.'.  [Phil Hope.]

Schedule 9
	  
	School travel schemes

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 203, line 17, leave out from 'child' to end of line 22 and insert 'if
	(a) no travel arrangements relating to travel in either direction between his home and the relevant educational establishment in relation to him, or in both directions, are provided in relation to him by any person who is not the scheme authority, or
	(b) such travel arrangements are provided in relation to him by any person who is not the scheme authority but those arrangements, taken together with any other such travel arrangements which are so provided, do not provide suitable home to school travel arrangements for the purpose of facilitating his attendance at the relevant educational establishment in relation to him.'. [Phil Hope.]

Schedule 14
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 8

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 224, line 24, at end insert
	'(4) In paragraph 14 omit sub-paragraph (1).'.
	No. 116, in page 228, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'omit' in line 9 and insert
	'(1) Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities) is amended as follows.
	(2) In Part 1
	(a) at the end of paragraph 1 insert other than the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, and
	(b) after that paragraph insert
	1A The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, in respect of information held for purposes other than those of the functions exercisable by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills by virtue of section 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
	(3) In Part 6'.
	No. 117, in page 230, line 32, after second 'school,' insert 'in England'.  [Phil Hope.]

Schedule 18
	  
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 239, line 9, at end insert
	
		
			 'Education Act 1996 (c. 56) In section 444 
			  In subsection (1A), the words without reasonable justification, and 
			  In subsection (3),paragraph (b) andthe word or immediately following it.'. 
		
	
	No. 79, in page 239, line 27, column 2, at beginning insert
	
		
			  'Section 159(3).' 
		
	
	No. 80, in page 241, line 33, column 2, leave out
	'In section 15(7), the words 65 or '
	and insert 'Section 15(7)'.
	No. 81, in page 241, line 39, column 2, at beginning insert
	
		
			  'In Schedule 7, paragraph 13.'. 
		
	
	No. 82, in page 241, line 39, column 2, leave out 'paragraph 79' and insert 'paragraphs 78 and 79'.
	No. 83, in page 241, line 47, column 2, at end insert
	
		
			  'In Schedule 5, paragraph 3(14).'. 
		
	
	No. 118, in page 243, line 4, column 2, leave out 'paragraph 13A(4)' and insert 'paragraphs 13A(4) and 14(1)'.
	No. 38, in page 244, line 37, column 2, at end insert
	
		
			  'In Schedule 22paragraph 1(1)(c);in paragraph 2(1)(a), the words from or acquired to the end; in paragraph 3(1)(a), the words from or acquired to the end; paragraph 3(1)(d);in paragraph 3(1)(f), the words (d) or; and in paragraph 3(8), the words (d),.'. 
		
	
	No. 39, in page 244, line 37, at end insert
	
		
			 'Education Act 2002 (c.32) In Schedule 21, paragraph 118(3)(b) and (4)(a)(ii).'. 
		
	
	No. 40, in page 244, line 39, at end add
	
		
			 'Education Act 2005 (c.18) In Schedule 12, paragraph 15.'. 
		
	
	 [Phil Hope.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Valid concerns have been raised during the passage of this Bill, and I hope that Members on both sides will agree that the Government have listened very carefully and responded where possible to make this a better Bill. The House has conducted a mature and healthy debate on a matter of supreme importance to all of our constituents.
	Education remains this Government's priority. Since 1997, we have almost doubled education spending, so that today there is an unprecedented rebuilding and refurbishment programme, with more teachers and support staff who are better trained and using new books and computers in our classrooms. We have also made huge progress in tackling embedded problems with literacy, numeracy and failing schools. All this is reflected in the fact that schools today are achieving the best ever results at every key stage.
	However, serious problems remain. High achievement is unevenly spread, and the scales of educational opportunity are still tipped far too heavily against disadvantaged children. The Bill focuses on unleashing the potential of each and every child, and with nine years' successful experience in raising educational attainment, we can build on what we know works well.
	The Bill will help more schools to follow the path to high achievement. By enabling schools to become self-governing and to form links with a charitable trust, the Bill will give greater independence, but within a structure of increased interdependence, so that all those with an interest in successful schooling can make a full contribution to their local school. The opportunities are great for further and higher education establishments to entice more children to climb the ladder of attainment, for voluntary groups to bring in new ideas and fresh thinking, for business trusts to help focus on future careers and take forward the 14-to-19 agenda, and for schools to share best practice.
	The trust model also ensures that those relationships are permanent and lasting, rather than transient and dependent on a few visionaries whose departure heralds the collapse of the project. Trusts combine the best of all the existing models, and there has been broad consensus about their potential in principle. However, concerns have revolved around how they might operate in practice.

Sarah Teather: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alan Johnson: No, I will not, as time is limited.
	We have confirmed that no school will be forced to become a trust school, but that every school will have that option, after consulting parents and stakeholders. And we have set out safeguards to ensure that trusts are not involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate. We have also put a requirement on trusts not only to help drive up standards but to contribute to community cohesion.

Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: No.
	We have amended the Bill so that the best local authorities will automatically be able to put forward new community schools for consideration. Most other local authorities will have opportunities to do the same, with only the worst being barred from doing so. The Bill also includes a clear ban on interviews and new selection by academic ability. We have strengthened the code on admissions, enhanced its status and circulated a draft of it to the House. That makes it crystal clear that there will be no new selection by the more covert means used in some places.
	Although the spotlight has fallen on trust schools, the Bill contains many other crucial measures that have attracted less attention. Giving all 14 to 19-year-olds the right to study for specialised diplomas will help to tackle three major economic and social problems: the skills gap; youth unemployment; and classroom disengagement. Twenty years after Lord Elton's ground-breaking report, the Bill enacts its central recommendation by giving teachers tough new powers to tackle unruly pupils inside and outside school. That will reduce classroom disruption and improve the attainment of all pupils. Other important powers relate to school meals, transport and an obligation on local authorities to ensure that young people have places to go and constructive things to do in their leisure time.
	I want to highlight one other less publicised aspect of the Bill. In respect of looked-after children, on whom we will focus attention over coming months, I remind the House that, for the first time, schools will be obliged to take in looked-after children who move into their area during the school year, as they often do, even if the school is full. That addresses the central problem of looked-after children consistently being dumped in the worst-performing schools to make up the numbers. That is one of the most important measures in the Bill, even if it has not attracted the most publicity.
	This Bill has received robust and thorough scrutiny in the House.

Clive Efford: I wanted the opportunity to engage with my right hon. Friend on a number of issues that, I think, are missing from the Bill, such as targeting resources on those areas where we need to raise standards

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but Third Reading is not the occasion to raise points that are not in the Bill. Third Reading is about what is in the Bill.

Alan Johnson: Incidentally, through this Bill and other policies, we are targeting attention on the most disadvantaged areas and failing schools. Another aspect of the Bill is that it allows us to turn around failing schools more quickly, as I have mentioned.

Mary Creagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the Bill relating to school food provide for the first time ever a national curriculum for children's bodies as well as for their minds? Will he urge local authorities to use the powers in the Bill to provide free school meals to children in their areas and to opt out of the charges that they currently impose?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to mention the ground-breaking scheme introduced by the local authority in Hull to provide free school meals, free fruit and vegetables and free breakfasts to all primary school pupils. To do that, it had to go through a tortuous process under the power to innovate. This Bill will allow every local authority to do that, and I agree very much with my hon. Friend, who has done some splendid work on the issue, that that is another crucial aspect of the Bill.
	As always, there will be Members who will not agree with every single aspect of the Bill. The question on Third Reading must be what educational advantage would be served by defeating the Bill. The Bill will drive up educational standards further by supporting stronger partnerships; creating new curriculum entitlements for 14 to 19-year-olds, enacting in many respects what was in the Butler Act of 1944 but was never brought into practice; ensuring better discipline; developing a powerful strategic role for local authorities; tightening up the admissions framework; and, as I mentioned, helping to turn around failing schools. Its purpose is to make every school a good school and to ensure that every child realises their full potential. Those objectives are shared by all hon. Members, no matter on which Benches they sit, and I commend the Bill to the House.

David Willetts: Perhaps I can begin by paying tribute to the work that has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House in scrutinising the Bill in Committee. It emerged from the Committee remarkably similar to the Bill that went into Committee and remarkably similar to the Bill that the Conservative party voted for on Second Reading. We will, of course, support the Bill on Third Reading, for many of the reasons set out by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
	I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box. I have not previously had a proper opportunity to welcome him to his new post. I have enormous respect for his abilities, both as a politician and as a Minister. Our paths have strangely inter-twingled[Hon. Members: Inter-twingled?] I should be the Deputy Prime Minister, talking like that. We have gone from pensions to energy and now to schools. In fact, the Secretary of State is to be found wherever the Government are in crisis, and he brings his own distinct sort of Dad's Army, Don't panic style to the various crises that he finds. If I may say so, I thought that he was in fine form yesterday. I cannot think of any member of the Cabinet who could have handled the rebellion that he faced yesterday better than he did. His reward, of course, was a Labour rebellion of 69 Members who voted against the Government. Perhaps it tells us a lot about the state of the Labour party and the Labour Government that, with all his skill, he faced a rebellion that wiped out their majority.
	The debates on the Bill, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, have had a strangely elusive quality, because the implications of the Bill may be quite modest. I hope that they are not modest in practice, but I am not as confident as the Secretary of State about how many schools will become trust schools. I have some concerns about what will happen when the human rights lawyers get to work on some of the points in a recent report. We may find that some of the Bill's provisions are hard to implement.

Gordon Prentice: The Secretary of State told me yesterday that a great many schools would opt for trust status by the end of this Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman estimate how many schools he thinks will go for trust status?

David Willetts: I would not like to give an estimate, but I believe that we should encourage schools to become trust schools. That is what the White Paper said, and it was one of the more curious moments in the passage of the Bill when the Secretary of State and other Ministers went through the Lobby yesterday to vote against a Conservative amendment that would have simply implemented the proposals in the White Paper. It is very unusual for Ministers to vote against the proposals in their own White Paper, when the Bill comes to the House.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: I am afraid that time is very limited, so I hope that hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
	I want to bring out the point that the reason why these debates have been so hard to pin down is that, although the Bill's implications may be modest in practice, they are very large in theory. There is a different way to think about education behind the Bill. It is a recognition that the future role for local education authorities is as purchasers, not as providers, that the future for schools must involve diversity, not standardisation, and that parents want choice, rather finding their children trapped in certain catchment areas.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: I am afraid that I will try to make progress in very limited time.
	Conservative Members have consistently believed in that philosophy; it is the thinking behind the White Paper and many of the provisions that survive even in relatively modest form in the Bill. The Labour rebels, if they may be called that, are deeply uncomfortable with that philosophy. I disagree with them, but I respect the integrity and consistency with which they have argued their case. They have revealed the real division that now exists in the House on education reform. A majority in the House, represented by the entirety of my party and the Front Bench of the Labour party, believe in those principles, although there may be many Labour Members who are uncomfortable with them. It is partly a disagreement of principle, but I have to say that I am increasingly persuaded by the evidence produced by evaluations around the world that school choice and school freedom work.

David Chaytor: rose

Ian Stewart: rose

David Willetts: I am afraid that I have only four minutes. It would not be right for me to give way.
	There is clear evidence from Sweden, from America and even from evaluations of our own grant-maintained schools that that is the best way in which to raise standards of education in our country, which is why we support the Bill and will continue to support it. But of course, in supporting the Bill and developing this agenda, my party has changed its approach as well. I fully recognise that my party's approach to the issue of selection has changed. In the process of forming a consensus on the best way of reforming education, we have abandoned any idea of a grammar school in every town. We have abandoned any idea of bringing back the 11-plus in grammar schools. We have recognised that our focus should be on how we can best raise standards in all our nation's schools. If there is to be selection, it is best for it to take place by means of setting within schools rather than allowing children across the country to face an invidious decision, at the age of 11, on which school they should attend.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

David Willetts: Of course we wish to support the grammar schools that survivethey are institutions with a long historybut my party will not bring back the 11-plus, and will not bring back grammar schools. That was an important statement for us to make, enabling us to show that we were serious about proceeding with the education reform agenda that lies behind the Bill.
	In fact, we have now reached a stage at which, unlike some Labour Members, we are not obsessed with the issue of selection. We are not going to try to expunge the last grammar school from the country. We will focus our attention on how to secure more good school places in total, rather than on the endless depressing battle over exactly how children are allocated to a small number of good schools. We all recognise that the problem in our country today is that there are not enough good schools.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

David Willetts: Perhaps I can look forward to a day when a Conservative Secretary of State is in office, and is able to use the powers in the Bill to deliver real education reform of the sort that the Prime Minister envisaged when he produced his White Paper last autumn.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has made it clear that he will not give way.

David Willetts: We will use the powers in the Bill to make it easier for schools to expand. We will use the powers in the Bill to give more freedom to schools. We will use the powers in the Bill to deliver on some of the promises that the Prime Minister made, but on which he has not been able to deliver. We look forward to using the powers in the Bill to deliver what the Prime Minister called, in his foreword to the White Paper, the aim of
	the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying
	state schools. That, I think, is the true objective of serious education reform, and as we fight that battle we will be able to say that ours is the party that is united in a commitment to deliver the radicalism behind the White Paperfrom which, sadly, the Government have had to retreat because of pressures from their own Back Benchers.
	It is on that basis that Conservative Members are pleased to support the Bill's Third Reading.

Sarah Teather: I am not sure how to follow that extraordinary love-in between the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the Secretary of State[Hon. Members: Inter-twingle!] Indeed. I cannot help wondering whether such a deep and personal display of affection may be something that we should not be watching in public. Although we are liberals on these Benches, I have always felt that three is a crowd, so we will not be joining in.
	Of course, the truth is that it is just a marriage of convenience, not the real thing. The Secretary of State needs the passport that the Conservatives can give his Bill, and the Conservatives are really only interested in breaking up his family. The Secretary of State has been left walking a tightrope between the two, trying to persuade his family that this time he really has changed while still clinging to his affair with the Conservative Front Bench. The truth is that, as the hon. Member for Havant said, the Bill has change very little since Second Reading, despite the Secretary of State's attempts to reassure his own Back Benchers that it has.
	The three key concerns that we had when we embarked on Second Reading remain. First, we do not believe that adequate safeguards on admissions have been given. If we are to give schools more freedom to control their own admissions, we want the extra safeguard of ensuring that someone impartial administers them. I welcomed the concession that the Minister made on Report for the conducting of pilots. However, I would have preferred that a permissive clause or enabling regulation be included in the Bill so that we could be sure that the Government are serious about this issue and are not simply going to kick it into the long grass, as I fear they will. Without such a safeguard, giving schools more freedom to control admissions is not adequate.
	Secondly, on accountability, we are totally opposed to giving trust schools the option of reducing the number of elected parent governors. To us, that flies in the face of all the spin about parent power. I assumed that I would never win the argument with the Secretary of State about giving away the power of veto, so that local authorities could have the strategic power that they desire to plan their own services. New Labour's commitment to new localism has never really been about accountability. Nevertheless, I was astonished by the arguments that were advanced yesterday against parental ballots.
	Thirdly and most importantly, I still do not feel that an adequate, clear vision has been set out. Is this a competitive education model or a collaborative one? Still, we have the Prime Minister's vision of a competitive model, rather than the vision that, I suspect, the Department for Education and Skills would much rather pursue: of a collaborative model that allows real choice in the curriculum. Without that model, we will never see the real reforms that we wantreforms that give schools the freedom to teach what young people want to learn.
	In our view, this Bill is a missed opportunity. It is a timid Bill with hidden dangers, and for that reason we will vote against it tonight.

Barry Sheerman: It is with reluctance, almost, that I rise to speak. I feel embarrassed at not having participated in the long hours of consideration of this Bill in Committee; however, my Select Committee did carry out a virtual pre-legislative inquiry when we examined the White Paper.
	I welcome the Bill and I will support it on Third Reading, as will the vast majority of my Labour colleagues. I will do so because it builds, as the Secretary of State said, on what we know works. The longer that I have chaired the Select Committee, the more that I have come to realise that it is not dogma that will deal with the problems that we encounter in our schools throughout the country. Some of my colleagues like dogma. A small group of them would still like to nationalise the top 100 companies, for example, and will vote for any of those old dogmas if they are given the chance.  [Interruption.] Well, they do not like it, do they?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the contents of the Bill.

Barry Sheerman: I am supporting this Bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is based on the principle of judging the evidence of what works in our schools. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, I visit at least one school a week, and I know that what works on the ground is not some high-flown dogma from the past or, indeed, the future. We need to sit down with our teachers, governors, parents and students and work out what will improve education on the ground.

Paul Farrelly: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Sheerman: I only want two more minutes.
	The fact is that this Bill is not radical or revolutionary; rather, it builds on the steady progress achieveddare I say it?under previous Conservative Governments as well as this Labour Government. That is the truth that we sometimes dare not speak in this House. Education is too important an issue for one party to make changes on taking office, and for the other then to reverse them on taking office. However, such a consensual approach is not good enough for some of my colleagues. What I want to do is to make steady progress, which probably sounds a little Oakeshottian to some of my colleagues. We have worked for nine years to improve the education of our children throughout this country, but that is not enough. There is a long way to go, and this Bill will take us further along the path of good, steady progress.

Clive Efford: There is much in the Bill that deserves to be supported and I accept the efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team, and their predecessors. However, the Bill provides the opportunity for schools to break away from the school community in a locality. The danger of that is that the local authorities will lose direct control of and influence over those schools. That would mean that the local community would lose influence over those schools.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend, in further proceedings on the Bill, will take on board that it should not diminish the role of local authorities. The overarching strategic responsibility for developing education in an area should remain with the local authority. We need a dynamic relationship with local communities, in which the local authority has a responsibility to consult with the whole school communityparents, head teachers, governors and everybody else involved in educationto develop an education plan that it can then publish and against which the performance of schools can be measured. Local parents will then have a clear framework for education in their area, against which they can measure the performance of schools and the delivery of education. The issue is providing information that parents can understand about education in their area that will allow them to make informed decisions about education.
	Even more importantly, local authorities have to be given the opportunity to identify areas of deprivation and of special educational need so that they can direct resources to those areas to raise standards. I said on Second Reading that as we came to power in 1997 the league tables for schools were being published. Although we have improved standards enormously across all schools, the schools are in the same positions in the league tables. That is true for my area and for areas across the country. I would have liked to have seen it stated in the Bill that we intended to identify areas of deprivation and need by setting the necessary criteria, so that we could direct the resources to them and finally, once and for all, give those kids who have not had the opportunity of having a decent education the resources needed to give them that. The Bill has been more about structures than about providing support for the very people at the sharp end of doing that very job.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government have already done a great deal to direct resources to deprived areas? Excellence in cities is a good example of the Government directing resources to where they are needed.

Clive Efford: I fully accept that and I made that point in my opening remarks. Indeed, the education action zone in my area worked because it provided extra resources and the freedom for staff and governors to direct those resources to improve standards.
	The White Paper said that the Government would make an announcement about that subject in the autumn, but why is it not part of the Bill? That is what I am arguing for. If a future Government did not want to invest resources in that way, they would have to explain to parents why it is no longer part of the local education plan that resources would be directed to schools in that way. That is what I wanted from the Bill. I accept that some hon. Members will say that that is what we want to achieve, but that is light years away from the rhetoric surrounding the Bill when it was published and from some of the statements made later.
	I have outlined my concerns about these proposals. Unfortunately, I cannot support the Bill this evening.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: There have been some very interesting discussions and deliberations over the past two days. However, I suggest to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) that consensus in the best interests of our children is something to be applauded rather than denigrated.
	It is perhaps unfortunate that we could not spend more time on some of the excellent proposals in the Bill. I shall highlight a few of them briefly, beginning with the duty that the Bill places on local authorities in the provision of services and facilities for young people. That is a huge step forward and it will help a lot of young people, in my constituency and others, to access a range of services that are not available at present.
	The Bill also moves forward the education of 14 to 19-year-olds. The availability of new diplomas and the right to study for specialised diplomas are essential for many of our young people and will contribute to the promotion of vocational education. In addition, local authorities will have new opportunities to provide free school meals to all children in their areas. That will transform the quality of food available to students, who will be able to eat good food at lunch time. I hope that the Government will encourage local authorities to take the option up.
	We have not had an opportunity to explore what personalised learning will mean for young people. However, I have seen it at work in some schools in Sweden, and I hope that the Bill will help its delivery in this country. That is one reason why I urge all colleagues to support the Bill's Third Reading.
	Other good provisions in the Bill include the new procedures to help improve discipline in schools, but before I conclude I want to mention the greater ability that this measure gives to local authorities to intervene in failing and coasting schools. That will raise standards for all our young people.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 422, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Constitutional law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved .[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social security

That the draft Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 24th April, be approved .[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Question agreed to.

SRI LANKA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Andrew Love: It would be remiss in starting this Adjournment debate not to welcome the Sri Lankan cricket team to this country and to wish its players the best of luck, because I think that they may need it.
	The primary reason why I have called the debate this evening is to report to Parliament on a recent delegation to Sri Lanka that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and I headed at the beginning of April this year. I shall report what we saw on our visit and some of the issues and concerns that were raised with us.
	I want to focus on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka and on the action that both the UK Government and, through them, the international community are taking to address the increased number of suicide attacks, random killings and assassinations and to move towards the resumption of the talks that were cancelled in April.
	I thank all those who were involved in arranging our visit, of whom there are too many to mention in this debate. I particularly want to thank those who were involved in facilitating our visit to the northwe flew to Jaffna and visited parts of the north that are under Government control.
	Before we made the visit, my constituents and members of the Sri Lankan community throughout the country expressed their concern to me, as chairman of the all-party group on Sri Lanka, that tsunami aid was simply not getting through to the north and east of the country. As a result, I raised two questions with Ministers in the Department for International Development. Despite the reassurances that I received, people still expressed concerns that nothing was happening in the north and east. I was thus relieved to receive a letter from the Sri Lankan high commissioner, who detailed at some length several of the projects that were being undertaken in the north. I shall cite a representative example from the letter. She wrote that the World Bank was spending just over $32 million
	to rehabilitate small irrigation schemes damaged by the tsunami
	and providing support for community capacity building reconstruction in the north and east.
	Even with that letter, it was still difficult to persuade those who made representations to me, so our visit to the north was welcome because it allowed us to see three sites, two of which were just outside Jaffna and one that was at Point Pedro, which is the most northerly point of the Sri Lankan island. During our visit, we saw the work of an Italian non-governmental organisation called Movimondo, which had completed work on 36 houses and built a school just outside Jaffna. Right adjacent to that was a World Bank scheme involving 111 houses. A lot of the houses were in the early stages of construction, but quite a few had roofs on. I have no doubt that they will have been completed by now. We also visited a site that was organised by Caritas, another NGO. There were to be 68 houses on the site. Although they were in the early stages of development, we could at least see the foundations of the houses that would be there.

Sadiq Khan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important and worthy debate. I have also heard reports from the Sri Lankan diaspora in my communitythe Tamil diasporaof the intimidation and harassment of NGO workers. The White Pigeon charity in my constituency and the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation in Sri Lanka have complained especially about the recent kidnapping of workers. When my hon. Friend was in Sri Lanka, did he get the chance to speak to NGO workers and find out from them whether they were being intimidated in the work that they were doing?

Andrew Love: We had the opportunity to speak to some of those involved in the three schemes in the north, but focused our attention primarily on the work that they were doing to rehabilitate and reconstruct following the tsunami. In all honesty, we did not get on to concerns about kidnapping, although I have heard similar reports to those cited by my hon. Friend.
	During our visit, we also spoke at length to the reconstruction and development agency in Sri Lanka. It confirmed that, although there had been complex negotiations, it was confident that the tsunami relief efforts were beginning to show in the north and east, so I hope that I can provide reassurance to those who are concerned about that.
	Through the good offices of the ministry for resettlement, we were able to visit Puttalam, which is in the western part of the island. We met some of the internally displaced people, who are primarily Muslims, who exist in 35 camps in the region. They have been in the camps for nearly 16 years. What we found was an absolute disgrace. The shelters were threadbare. The food supplies that the people received were intermittent and the food was basic, to say the least. People had to walk two miles to get water that they could drink and more than a mile just to get a bath in the morning. There were few employment opportunities for the people. Education was non-existent and discrimination was rife among the local people.

David Drew: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate. The sad thing about Sri Lanka is that religious intolerance is still bad. The conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils is one thing, but the undercurrent of religious intolerance is just as bad. Did he see any of that on his visit?

Andrew Love: In relation to the Muslim community, a great deal of the discrimination described to us was partly based on religious differences. I have heard reports of other minority religions being discriminated against. It is of concern, but it was not our primary focus on visiting the island.
	We spoke to a number of the people in the camps and were surprised to discover that they did not want to return to their original homes in the north and east. They felt safe where they were and had been living there for a considerable time. It was very much the strong feeling of both members of the delegation that they had been forgotten by everyoneby their Government and the international community. It was part of our wish on returning to raise their profile and see whether something could be done. I note that the Department for International Development has been involved in innovative programmes on internally displaced persons. In former programmes, it has tried to assist people to return to their original homes. It could construct a similar programme so that people can rehabilitate themselves within the district of Puttalam and establish employment opportunities. Perhaps the Minister can pass that request on to his colleagues.

Brian Binley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on obtaining the debate and thank him for his great companionship on the trip. I support what he says about those unfortunate people in Puttalam. Frankly, their plight shocked me to the core. One of our objectives was to get the British Government to raise the matter in a slightly more active way. I recognise that Ministers are aware of the situation and are compassionate about it, but I make a plea to extend those efforts and to raise the profile of those people, who have been forgotten in relation to the tsunami, the troubles and so on. Does he agree that that would help?

Andrew Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and endorse everything he says. I hope that Ministers will read our debate tomorrow and take those issues up on our behalf.
	The main reason for having the debate this week is the concern that exists throughout the international community, but primarily on the island itself, about the major escalation in violence following the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement talks in April. That had been coming for some time. The two sides were on the slippery slope. Although there had been a so-called ceasefire agreement since 2002, the violence never stopped. If we look back at the history of that agreement, we see that, although intensive talks took place between 2002 and 2003, they soon ran out of steam. There has been little or no political progress since then. The situation between the two communities has deteriorated and violence has flared up.
	A combination of events led to that position, such as the assassination of the former Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgama, the collapse of the post-tsunami operational management structureP-TOMSagreement, which would have allowed both communities to be involved in tsunami relief, and the split in the Tamil Tigers, with the Karuna faction actively engaged in violent activities, mainly against the other part of its own community. Human rights violations have been perpetrated with impunity in the north and east of the island. There was euphoria when the talks began in February, but that was soon replaced by the same old problem of lack of trust and confidence between the two communities, with the result that tit-for-tat violence led to the current situation.
	Talks broke down after the Tamil Tigers walked out, because in their view the Government did not help to facilitate meetings between commanders in the north and east of the island. They claim that those talks have not been abandoned. I hope that that is the case, because the re-establishment of genuine talks is one of our few hopes of progressing to negotiations. The situation is seriousindeed, it is much more serious than it was. In a recent speech, the Minister highlighted the attempted assassination of the army chief, General Fonseca as an example of the escalating violence on the island. There have been many incidents, but recently, a suicide attack on a navy gunboat killed 18 crew members and injured many others. Many people who were on the boat used by the attackers were also killed.
	In April, 191 peoplesome of them were soldiers but many were civilianswere killed on both sides of the conflict. The violence has been condemned and there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity. Norway has actively engaged in the task of trying to bring people together. What are the British Government doing on behalf of Parliament to try to bring the parties together to reduce the violence on the island? For example, have they pressed for a resumption of the talks between the two parties on a ceasefire agreement? What action has been taken by the United Nations and the European Union to try to support efforts to engage the parties? We are in a unique positionwe have a long historical connection with Sri Lanka, and many Sri Lankans live in the UKso are we assisting Norway with our expertise?
	At the end of the month, major donors, including the EU and the UK, will meet in Tokyo. What action will they take to try to reduce the violence on the island? People across the country who are interested in Sri Lanka often raise the issue of whether the UK Government could and should play a more central role in offering assistance. We all know the historical record: the Indian Government and the United Nations have been involved, and Norway is currently involved. We accept that there are difficulties, but Britain can play a special or unique role. I hope that the Minister accepts the urgency of the situation.

Sadiq Khan: Today, I received a letter from Mr. Seevaratnum at my local Sivayagum temple. He feels frustrated and let down by the British Government. He believes that they have failed to take enough action to make people aware of what is happening in his homeland and that they should be more interventionist and help their kin in Sri Lanka. Does my hon. Friend empathise with those feelings?

Andrew Love: I hope that the Minister can respond, as I have certainly heard such feelings expressed on many occasions. We are doing what we can, but I am sure that the Minister will offer reassurance to the House and the communities that are listening to our debate so that they can be confident that we are doing everything that we can to help Sri Lanka at a time of extreme need.

Kim Howells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate. These are difficult times for Sri Lanka, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss how the United Kingdom is engaged in Sri Lanka to help improve the prospects for all. We should remember that Sri Lanka is not a small, faraway island. It is a substantial country of 20 million people.
	The Indian ocean tsunami caused wide-scale loss of life and devastation last year. Hopes that the process of tsunami recovery and reconstruction would help develop greater long-term harmony among communities were unfortunately not realised. Over the past year, there has been a steady and deeply worrying deterioration in the security situation in the country. Sri Lanka's development is again in danger of being overshadowed by its long- running ethnic conflict.
	The appalling assassination of the Foreign Minister, as we heard from my hon. Friend, was followed by the attempted assassination of an army commander, regular attacks on military personnel, grenade attacks against civilians, extra-judicial killings, disappearances and intimidation, mob violence and violence by paramilitary groups. The cycle of violence has contributed to an atmosphere of extreme mistrust and polarisation, which has fuelled further antagonism and violence.
	For a lasting peace to be possible, the violence must abate, and the parties must discuss in earnest and honest terms the issues that matter to them and find a way forward. No one else can do that for them. That is a statement which I know my hon. Friend understands. He has visited Sri Lanka, together with the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), and seen it for himself. I saw it for myself on my visit there.
	Only Sri Lankans can secure a peace for Sri Lanka. All sectors of Sri Lankan society need to contribute positively to the quest for peace. The Sri Lankan diaspora in the UK and elsewhere in the world, like any diaspora, needs to allow the parties the appropriate space to make progress towards peace, and we must try to help with that.
	However, as my hon. Friend made clear, the international community has an important role to play in the peace process by supporting and encouraging the parties on that journey, and creating an environment conducive to building a sustainable peace that will benefit all the peoples of Sri Lanka. Within the international community, the UK uses its long-standing and good relationship with the people of Sri Lanka to work to that end. I am sure the House supports that aim.
	In response to the worsening situation in December and January, the international community urged the parties to talk. As presidency of the European Union, Great Britain played a big part in those efforts. The co-chairs of the Sri Lanka donor groupthe EU, the United States, Norway and Japanput great pressure on the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to put an end to the violence and fully respect the ceasefire.
	Those efforts brought results, when the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE got round the table in Geneva in February for the first time in three years. All of us had great hopes at that moment. The Government pledged that no armed group or person other than Government security forces would carry arms or conduct armed operations, and for their part, the LTTE pledged to take all necessary measures to ensure that there would be no acts of violence against the security forces and the police. Both sides made a commitment to ensure that there would be no intimidation, acts of violence, abductions or killings.
	I am sure my hon. Friend and hon. Members will agree that the resurgence and subsequent escalation in violence since that moment is all the more disappointing. Since the beginning of April, as my hon. Friend reminded us, at least 300 people have died, more than half of them civilians. That is a terrible situation.
	We know that the LTTE are responsible for many of the violent acts. Our position on the LTTE is clear: they are a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Along with the international community, we have urged them time and again to move away from the path of violence. Our concerns go beyond high profile attacks on the armed forces. There is an established pattern of LTTE involvement in killings, torture, detention of civilians and denial of freedom of speech. For many Tamils, any expression of opposition to the LTTE is not an option. That is the sad truth. We remain deeply disturbed by the LTTE's continuing recruitment of child soldiers.
	But the LTTE is not the only source of violence. I have to make clear, too, our deep concern at the plight of civilians in Government-controlled areas, who are regularly subjected to brutal attacks by paramilitary groups, often acting with apparent impunity. There are also reports that Government security forces may be involved in some of those killings.
	So what needs to happen next? My hon. Friend asked some very pertinent questions. In my view, the answer is clear. It is vital that both sides return to the negotiating table and live up to the commitments that they made in Geneva in February. We shall continue to offer political and practical support to the peace process in whatever way we can. Violence is not the answer. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement that satisfies the concerns and legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans and preserves national unity and integrity. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing the hope that all parties go down that road, and soon, and that we shall finally see Sri Lanka fulfil its very considerable potential. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South has told me, it is potentially a tourist paradise. It should be one of the wealthiest countries in southern Asia, but it is rapidly becoming one of the poorest. It is a disgrace that that has been allowed to happen.
	What are we in the United Kingdom doing? The British Government continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to fulfil the obligations that they made at the Geneva talks in February, to do all they can to stop the violence, and to return to talks. We have given our full support to the efforts of the Norwegians, who have the difficult task of facilitating this process. We very much admire their continued determination and inexhaustible work in the face of much public dissension. The Norwegian interlocutors who are doing this work always pay us the privilege of calling into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can keep us abreast and we can find out from them what we can do to help. We have continued to do that. We also continue to support the work of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission, now led by a Swedish general, in monitoring ceasefire violations.
	On a practical level, we contribute to peace-building in Sri Lanka through the implementation of a peace-building strategy that has been agreed across the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. It focuses on such themes as greater adherence to human rights standards, preparedness for peace negotiations, and strengthening civil society. DFID has contributed 2.6 million towards de-mining activities in Sri Lanka, which is a very serious issue that my hon. Friend did not have a chance to discuss; 6.25 million to UNICEF's children affected by armed conflict programme, which is another very serious issue; almost 2 million to civil society organisations to promote conflict transformation; 3.5 million to Oxfam to reduce the number of children suffering as a result of the conflict; and 3.3 million to Save the Children Sri Lanka to increase respect and realisation of child rights.
	Let me deal with the issue of internally displaced personsI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Member for Northampton, South for raising it. Internally displaced persons should be protected and assisted by their Governments in the first instance. However, if a Government are unable or unwilling to do that, the international community should provide support. There has been much debate about that in the United Nations recently. We must carefully examine what the international community can do to help in those circumstances.
	In Sri Lanka, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is mandated to assist internally displaced persons. In 2005, the British Government gave 30 million to UNHCR, of which 20 million was DFID core funding, and we would like at least some of that money to be spent on alleviating the problems of internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka. Like my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Northampton, South, we support the principle that every internally displaced person has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his or her residence.
	Internally displaced persons should have conditions established by competent authorities, which allow them to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity to their homes or habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman understand that the Government are concerned about that important issue. I am glad that they raised it.
	Since the tsunami, a great deal has been achieved and assistance is reaching most victims of that terrible natural disaster. However, with so many independent non-governmental organisations active throughout Sri Lanka, there are wide differences between districts in the standards and quality of relief work. The immense size of the reconstruction task is stretching the capacity of central and local government to manage and co-ordinate assistance. Assistance has been reaching some communities more quickly than others.
	The Government and donors, including DFID, are working to make the administration as efficient as possible and to remove any bureaucratic hurdles that constrain non-governmental organisation activities. With that in mind, DFID has recently approved1.5 million for the north-east provincial councilNEPCto increase its capacity to deliver services to affected communities. The NEPC is responsible for some 70 per cent. of the area damaged by the tsunami. Despite the difficulties, the achievements to date have been substantial. Assistance is reaching communities throughout the country and making a genuine difference. Sadly, the recent escalation in violence has led to a suspension of the programme and some other DFID activities in Sri Lanka. I greatly hope that an improvement will occur in the security situation and allow those activities to resume.
	 Question put and agreed to
	 Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.